Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Glasgow Corporation presented by Mr. Ross (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Homosexual Offences (Statistics)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for statistics covering homosexual offences to indicate the number of convictions involving young persons under the age of 21.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): The Criminal Statistics for England and Wales already indicate the number of persons under 21 found guilty of homosexual offences. My right hon. Friend will consider whether they could also give information about the ages of the victims when he has the report of the Departmental Committee on Criminal Statistics, which is examining the possibility of recording the ages of the victims of offences generally.

Mr. Shepherd: As we are under very considerable pressure, based on the number of convictions, to allow more licence to homosexual activities, is it not essential to get figures which show the number of offences against young persons and the number of offences committed in public?

Miss Bacon: Yes. As I said, we have the figures for the offences committed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a case for so changing the statistics that we also get the number of the victims and their ages.

Dr. David Kerr: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the term "victims" is not necessarily applicable to everybody below the age of 21 who takes part in homosexual activities?

Miss Bacon: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will take all these matters into consideration when reviewing the statistics.

Prisoner, Winson Green (Solitary Confinement)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why a prisoner at Winson Green was kept in solitary confinement from 28th May, 1964, to 10th November, 1964; and if he will ensure that there is no repetition of solitary confinement of this duration.

Miss Bacon: The reason was as stated in the Answer I gave on 26th November last. The situation created by this most exceptional case is unlikely to recur.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the hon. Lady aware that this period of detention—six months—gives rise to very real concern? Can she say what steps, if any, have been taken to make certain that if this issue were repeated, these circumstances would not be repeated?

Miss Bacon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about these cases. With regard to this particular case, this was a prisoner with a record of violence who was segregated on 26th May pending the police investigation into an incident where the man was alleged to have struck another prisoner a violent blow and then, while the other prisoner was on the floor, kicked him about the head until he was unconscious. This man was segregated from his fellow prisoners until his trial at the assizes, which did not take place until 10th November. I think that it was the very great delay in the assizes which was responsible, but I would add that this prisoner is now in Grendon Psychiatric Prison, receiving treatment. I hope that in future there will not be this long segregation of prisoners in cells.

Municipal Casinos

Dr. Miller: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to enable him to grant to local authorities the power to establish municipal casinos, with a view to exercising a proper control over this form of gambling.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not propose to introduce legislation for this purpose.

Dr. Miller: Is my hon. Friend aware that the real object of legislation of this kind is to exercise a proper control over this form of gambling? Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is a sad commentary on a hundred years of social progress that we have moved from laissez faire to chemin de fer? Is my hon. Friend further aware that when the history of this era, this age, is read, it will be known as the "B.B.C. age"—bingo, betting and casinos?

Mr. Thomas: I do not understand the reference which my hon. Friend has made. Maybe he will explain it to me. He will be aware that an extension such as he asks for would cause great offence to a great many ratepayers who would have to pay for something to which they took the strongest exception.

Mr. Speaker: It all goes to show that we should maintain our rule that the House should be addressed in English.

Immigration (False Passports)

Mr. Gurden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to deal with the problem of immigration which takes place by means of false passports.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): All practicable steps are taken to deal with this problem.

Mr. Gurden: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is impossible to know the exact immigrant population in this country, so many evasions having taken place? Secondly, would he look at the idea of having fingerprint identification on passports?

Sir F. Soskice: It is difficult to form an accurate estimate as to the total number of the immigrant population of this country. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, I do not see any necessity for that.

Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a most offensive thing to introduce and would have to apply not only to the coloured immigrants but to white Commonwealth immigrants as well? Will he take the strongest possible objection to this sort of Question, put down once again to raise the issue in this House, and the manner in which it has been done?

Sir F. Soskice: It is perfectly evident that any steps of that sort, whatever they are, must be taken with complete impartiality both in the case of white immigrants from the older Commonwealth countries and in the case of coloured immigrants from the newer Commonwealth countries. It is perfectly evident that there would have to be complete impartiality.

Mr. Longden: Irrespective of the merits of this matter, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House and the country whether the creation of a multi-racial society in these islands is an aim of deliberate policy of the Government, which would be one thing, or whether it is coming about by a process of involuntary drift, which would be quite another?

Sir F. Soskice: We are multi-racial now. There are between 800,000 and 1 million coloured immigrants in this country, and we must try to behave as civilized people and live happily together in a prosperous and well-ordered community.

Taxi Drivers (Increased Petrol Duty)

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the effects which the increased petrol duty will have on the remuneration of taxi drivers, if he will take early appropriate steps to restore their earning power.

Mr. George Thomas: The increased duty should make only a small addition to operating costs, which will in most cases fall on taxicab proprietors rather


than the drivers. No initiative on my right hon. and learned Friend's part appears to be called for. My right hon. and learned Friend is aware that the trade consider that the increased costs of cab operation since fares were last adjusted justify reconsideration of the present tariff, and they have been told that any application for an increase must, in accordance with the usual practice, be accompanied by audited accounts.

Dr. Kerr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would not he agree that the improvement in the service to London Transport rendered by taxi drivers and taxi-cab operators justifies any means of keeping the trade prosperous? However much the increased petrol duty affects the taxi-cab trade, would not he agree that in so far as we have promised access to reduce petrol duty for other transport undertakings the same exemption may be made available to taxi drivers in the London area?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. The additional fuel duty is 6d. per gallon. On a calculation of 20 miles to the gallon the extra cost per mile would be little more than ¼d., and the average for a hiring a little more than ld. The proprietors say that they would need an extra 2d. a hiring to cover the extra cost. They are looking into the matter to supply us with the necessary information.

Mr. Hooson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the urgent need to increase the number of taxis available, especially as the Liberal Party now needs many more in London than it used to need?

Mr. Hogg: Two taxis instead of one.

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (Easter March)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are being made by the Metropolitan Police in connection with the Easter march of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special arrangements are being made by the Metropolitan Police in connection with the Easter march of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Sir F. Soskice: The Commissioner of Police will make a final decision on the measures to be taken by the Metropolitan Police when arrangements for the march have been completed by its organisers.

Mr. Marten: I thank the home Secretary for that reply. Can he give an assurance that no C.N.D. sympathisers in the Government will take part in these activities in the Metropolitan area?

Sir F. Soskice: I can give no assurance whatsoever; processions are perfectly lawful in this country.

Mr. Fisher: May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little on this matter? How many of his right hon. Friends will be marching this year, and does he know whom they will be?

Sir F. Soskice: I have not the slightest idea. It is entirely a matter for them.

Mr. Snow: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that these marches of protest serve a useful purpose in forming public opinion as exemplified by the march now being walked—if that be the correct term—with the encouragement of President Johnson in America?

Sir F. Soskice: I thought we lived in the greatest democracy in the world. I always thought that marches, public processions and public addresses were one of the ordinary instruments of democracy and extremely useful.

Prisoners (Hostel Parole)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to extend the granting of hostel parole to men serving prison sentences; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Bacon: At present I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) on 10th December.

Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind the need for a reform? Is the hon. Lady aware that I am sorry that she has not been able to make a fuller statement on this matter and that this is a very real problem? Will she bear in mind that I have experience of this problem in my constituency and that some action is necessary now?

Miss Bacon: Action is taking place now, as the hon. Gentleman will realise if he reads the Answer which I gave on 10th December. My right hon. and learned Friend is very keen to extend the hostel system, because we believe it to be a valuable means of transition from prison life to life outside. My Answer on 10th December said that three hostels are shortly to be opened at Maidstone, Bristol and Wormwood Scrubs, and others are being planned.

Mr. Lubbock: Cannot the hon. Lady be a little more forthcoming about this? Can she say when the three hostels are to be opened? Can she also say whether there is any plan for opening hostels in other part sof the country?

Miss Bacon: Yes, Sir. The Bristol hostel will be ready in the late summer and the other two early next year. We hope to get others open as soon as possible. We are considering opening other hostels for particular categories of prisoners.

Private Detectives

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the number of alleged private detective agencies set up in recent months by undesirable persons, he will introduce legislation providing for registraton and strict control of private detectives.

Sir F. Soskice: I am not satisfied that legislation of this nature is required.

Mr. Tuck: Is the Home Secretary aware that people are being swindled right and left by these new bogus detective agencies which are springing up and that it is causing embarrassment to genuine detective agencies, because it is bringing them into disrepute? Will he consider consulting the Commissioner of Police and the various chief constables, and perhaps the Law Society and the Bar Council, with a view to preventing this wholesale deception?

Sir F. Soskice: I have no information at my disposition which would support what the hon. Member has said. I will very readily consider any information he may be able to furnish to me. The information available to the police does not, at the moment, confirm that there has

been a recent increase in the number of undesirable agencies.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that it would be a great advantage for the police to know not only where there were detective agencies but where security services were developing outside of police forces? Would he not agree that if they knew where they were they could at least get some mutual co-operation?

Sir F. Soskice: The Question put to me is whether I will introduce legislation. I cannot see any need for legislation. The question of private security organisations is a different matter and does not arise, so far as I can see, within the scope of the Question.

Police Recruitment

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will implement the proposals on police recruitment submitted to him by the Police Federation.

Sir F. Soskice: The Federation's proposals relating to pay and hours of duty are initially the concern of the Police Council for Great Britain, to which they have been referred. The remainder of the Federation's memorandum was discussed last week at a meeting of the Police Council for England and Wales under my chairmanship. It was agreed that the bodies represented on the Council should give further consideration to the matters raised with a view to further discussion.

Mr. Morrison: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he agrees that one of the best ways to overcome the present shortage in the police force would be by the provision of better and more modern equipment? Will he give this aspect his closest attention?

Sir F. Soskice: The provision of the best modern equipment has been for a considerable time a matter of close study by my Department.

Mr. Sharples: Is the Home Secretary aware of the very real concern there is, I think in all parts of the House, about the subject of police recruitment? Would


he give an assurance that the proposals put forward by the Police Federation will have very urgent and sympathetic consideration by him?

Sir F. Soskice: That was one of the objects of the meeting to which I referred. As I said, all the proposals which may be put forward will receive careful study.

Abortion

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation for the reform and modernisation of the law on abortion.

Miss Bacon: My right hon. and learned Friend is keeping the matter under review but he regrets that he can hold out no prospect of early Government legislation.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the present barbarous law is held in contempt, is widely abused or ignored and very often results in very painful mutilation and death? Since several Members of the Government are on record as wanting this highly desirable reform, may I ask whether my hon. Friend would give an undertaking that the Government will provide time for treatment of this Measure in the same way as they have given time for the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill?

Miss Bacon: My right hon. and learned Friend and I recently met a deputation from the Abortion Law Reform Association, which put to us all the matters which have just been put to me by my hon. Friend. I agree that this is a very important subject which arouses a great deal of interest. I repeat, everything put to us by the Abortion Law Reform Association is being studied most carefully, but I could not, of course, say anything about whether or not, or when, a Bill would be introduced.

Mr. Carlisle: Does the Minister realise that the proposals put forward by the Abortion Law Reform Association were extremely moderate and would have a great welcome from both sides of the House?

Miss Bacon: Yes, Sir. I realise that there is support for this on both sides

of the House, and this is one of the things which we will take into consideration when looking at all the important problems which were put to us by this deputation.

Applicants for Naturalisation (Police Interviews)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that the police authorities are the proper body to interview and examine applicants for naturalisation in proficiency in English language; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. George Thomas: The police are asked to interview all applicants for naturalisation in order to report on the applicant's ability to meet the statutory requirements, one of which is sufficient knowledge of the English language. My right hon. Friend does not think it necessary or desirable to set up special machinery to deal with this particular requirement.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would the Joint Under-Secretary agree that in some cases this is not the most suitable way of doing it? Is he aware that I have sent to his Department details of an example which occurred in my constituency—a case in which grief was caused owing to the refusal to grant a permit because of lack of proficiency in the English language? Would he consider setting up a team or panel of educational experts to undertake these activities, which would not be very onerous?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman came to see me about this matter. We have considered his suggestions very carefully. In all doubtful cases, the police give a detailed report of the applicant's knowledge of English, but it is the Home Office which ultimately decides. It is felt that the present system is the best one.

Racehorses (Women Trainers)

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to enable women trainers of horses to obtain a licence so that in the future they will be able to racehorses under their own names instead of, as at present, under that of a relative or employee.

Mr. George Thomas: No.

Dame Joan Vickers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very disappointing reply, especially since we have just been told by his right hon. and learned Friend that this is the greatest democracy in the world? I understood that the present Government were against discrimination of any kind. If so, how do they justify that women can be racehorse owners, can lead in winning racehorses, and can—

Hon. Members: Jockeys?

Dame Joan Vickers: —they can be jockeys in certain races, and can train horses, but cannot have licences in their own names? Surely there is a discrimination against women there?

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. and learned Friend and I would be the last to frustrate the legitimate ambitions of women, but the House should know that the regulation of horse racing is in the hands of the recently constituted Turf Authority together with the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend has no responsibility in this matter, so the hon. Lady should try elsewhere.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Notwithstanding the attempt by my hon. Friend to evade responsibility, does he not realise that this is an outmoded form of discrimination, especially having regard to the distinguished women trainers, women jockeys and huntswomen? Will he take steps to modernise the position?

Mr. Thomas: My hon. and learned Friend may be well assured that I am as aware as is my right hon. and learned Friend of the great part women play in our national life. We should like to help them but, as I said, this matter is riot really our responsibility.

Dame Joan Vickers.: In view of the very unsatisfactory reply from the Minister, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Adoption Agencies Regulations, 1959

Mr. Sharples: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to amend the Adoption Agencies Regulations, 1959, so

as to permit, with the necessary safeguards, the disclosure of confidential information to properly accredited research workers.

Miss Bacon: Yes.

Mr. Sharples: I thank the Minister of State for that reply. Can she say when she intends to do this?

Miss Bacon: It will be fairly soon. Amendments will be needed not only to the Adoption Agencies Regulations but also to the rules governing the procedure for making adoption orders in the courts. A set of miscellaneous amendments to the rules governing adoption agencies and the procedure for making adoption orders in juvenile courts is now being prepared by my Department and will soon he ready for discussion with interested organisations.

Police (Road Traffic Departments)

Mr. Clive Bossom: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the numbers of police in England and Wales in 1938 and 1964; and what proportions were employed in the road traffic departments.

Mr. George Thomas: The number of police officers in England and Wales on 29th September, 1938, was 60,010 and on 30th September, 1964, was 80,070. Comparable figures of the numbers employed in road traffic departments are not available.

Mr. Bossom: I thank the Joint Under-Secretary for that Answer. As the number of vehicles has increased from 3 million to 12 million since 1938, would it not be now right to have an intensive campaign for recruiting police? Would he also consider allowing wardens to be used more for traffic duties, and will he also consider the important question of making small units in all counties, on the same lines as the new London Central Traffic Division, which seems to have got off to such a good start?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman's suggestions will be considered seriously by my right hon. and learned Friend. The number of traffic wardens has grown at the rate of about 250 a year. At the end of 1964 they totalled 1,032 and


we are aware of the advantages of using them more to relieve the police of some of their duties.

Fifteen-year-old Boy (Motor Vehicle)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority a 15–year-old boy was charged by the Metropolitan Police with using a vehicle on the road while under age and uninsured when he was returning a stolen vehicle to a police station.

Mr. George Thomas: The charges referred to were laid under Sections 5, 97(1) and 201 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.

Mr. Lubbock: Is it not clear that if proper inquiries had been made this prosecution would never have been brought? I am not concerned with this individual case, but with the general principle. Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that in cases where the police have brought prosecutions of this kind and the person concerned has been convicted, even though, had the police known the full facts, they would not have prosecuted, a free pardon is given to that person?

Mr. Thomas: This is a difficult case. The lad was returning the scooter, so he said, which he had discovered, but was well off the route he should have been taking if he was returning it to the police station, and the police felt that there was a case to take to court. Although the boy was dismissed on the charge of stealing the vehicle, he was, of course, fined on the other charges.

Birmingham Police (Report)

Mr. Julius Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that no action or criminal proceedings will now be taken against the police officers involved in the Machent Inquiry relating to alleged irregularities by Birmingham police officers, if he will now publish the results of the inquiry together with the evidence there tendered; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take following his discussion with representatives of the

organisation Justice on the subject of the Machent Report; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Victor Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now considered the representations made to him by Justice concerning the publication of the Machent Report; what steps he now proposes to take to reassure the people of Birmingham that the Birmingham Police were rightly acquitted of the charges made against them; and if he will now reconsider the advisability of publishing the report.

Sir F. Soskice: I have almost completed my study of the very voluminous report by Superintendent Machent, and expect to be in a position to make a statement shortly. As I told the House on 3rd March, I cannot agree to the disclosure of a police report on inquiries into possible criminal offences.

Mr. Silverman: Whilst I am grateful that my right hon. and learned Friend is to make a more complete statement, may I ask him to bear in mind that, as this inquiry embraces 22 convictions and as some of the people convicted are serving long terms of imprisonment but might possibly be innocent, this is a matter of public interest, and not merely one of discipline within the police force itself? If my right hon. and learned Friend is not able to publish the results of this inquiry, I hope that he will make facilities available, at any rate, for hon. Members interested to see the proceedings.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend willing to consider a public inquiry by an independent tribunal, on the basis of the Challoner model? Will he also tell us whether in these inquiries—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had better answer as far as we have got. I have no means of restraining the length of supplementary questions except by this means which, although apparently discourteous, is the best I can do.

Sir F. Soskice: It would be entirely premature for me to anticipate my decision by giving an answer in part. This is a very important report which covers a very wide range, and therefore it needs


the most thorough study before any conclusion is announced.

Mr. Evans: Will a review be carried out of the sentences of the men still in prison, and is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the police themselves should investigate cases of this nature?

Sir F. Soskice: I am afraid that I can only repeat the Answer I have given. The report must be thoroughly studied before any conclusions are stated.

Mr. Gurden: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at the facts of these cases, because I understand that some of these people were refused leave to appeal against their sentences?

Sir F. Soskice: The persons concerned were dealt with in the ordinary way by the courts, which came to decisions in the ordinary process of justice.

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 17—Mr. Thorpe.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Lubbock: I hear one or two hon. Members ask "Where is he?" My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe)—

Mr. Speaker: Interesting as it may be, it would not be orderly to inquire.

Young Offenders

Mr. John Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of young first offenders between the ages of eight and 11 subsequently come before the juvenile courts charged with a second offence.

Miss Bacon: Since 1st February, 1964, no child under the age of 10 can be guilty of an offence; and the information asked for is not available for those between 10 and 11. Some figures relating to a very small sample of offenders found guilty of indictable offences and the more important non-indictable offences in the Metropolitan area in 1957 are included in Table 1 on page 43 of the Home Office publication "The Sentence of the Court".

Mr. Harvey: Can the Minister of State confirm that those figures suggest that more than 50 per cent. of these youngsters

appeared a second time? The purpose of my Question was to find out whether the hon. Lady had any reason to believe that circumstances were now improving in this respect.

Miss Bacon: I have no figures to show that they are improving. They simply show that some 53 per cent. of first offenders were found guilty of further offences within five years. I have no figures to show that the position is improving, but I am sure that the whole House will feel that these figures are rather disturbing, and that we ought to do everything we possibly can to see that young offenders do not come before the courts again.

Sunday Observance

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Her Majesty's Government have now completed their study of the views expressed by hon. Members on the Crathorne Report on 15th February: what conclusions they have arrived at on the revision of the laws affecting Sunday observance; and whether the necessary legislation is now being prepared.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government propose to introduce legislation to carry out the Crathorne proposals on Sunday observance.

Sir F. Soskice: While I am anxious that the law on Sunday observance should be rationalised and brought into keeping with modern thought and conditions as soon as that can reasonably be done, I am not yet able to say when it may be possible to introduce legislation.

Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the majority of those who spoke in the debates on this subject in both Houses of Parliament were, broadly speaking, in favour of the reforms proposed by the Crathorne Committee, and, whatever further soundings of public opinion or consultations have to be taken, will he also bear in mind that most of those were actually taken by the Crathorne Committee itself? Therefore, will he assure us that there will not be undue delay?

Sir F. Soskice>: One of the purposes of the debate was to elicit opinions both inside the House of Commons and in the


country. Quite naturally, the Government will give the most careful consideration to what was said in all parts of the House.

Mr. Sharples: Can the Home Secretary say what further steps he is taking, and what is the main factor that is delaying legislation?

Sir F. Soskice: The steps I am taking are to ponder most carefully on the various views that are expressed, and to consider in the light of them how best the public interest may be served.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that such legislation would be widely welcomed; and that if the Government cannot see their way clear to introduce it quickly there will be a great deal of scepticism in the country that we have no intention of acting quickly in this matter?

Sir F. Soskice: I do not think that I can add to what I have said, namely, that I am anxious that the law on Sunday observance should be rationalised and brought into keeping with modern thought and conditions as soon as that can reasonably be done.

Adoption of Children (Regulations)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made to him concerning alterations in regulations concerning the adoption of children; what reply he has sent; and whether he will make a statement.

Miss Bacon: A variety of representations about amending the law on adoption are made and considered from time to time. If my hon. Friend has a particular point in mind, I shall be grateful if he will let me know.

Lord Balniel: The hon. Lady has asked whether her hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) has a particular point in mind. Will she bear in mind that the time allowed for inquiries by child care officers is very limited? As a result of this, and as a result of a shortage of child care officers, the inquiries are often very superficial indeed. Will she bear that in mind also?

Miss Bacon: Yes, I will certainly bear in mind that point and all the other factors which have arisen since the 1957 Act came into operation.

Anti-Semitic Literature (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

Mr. Rhodes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take concerning the distribution of anti-semitic literature in the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, copies of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East.

Mr. George Thomas: My right hon. and learned Friend is keeping in mind activities of this sort in framing the provisions of the Bill, which he hopes shortly to introduce, dealing with incitement to racial hatred.

Mr. Rhodes: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind when he is considering this matter that these leaflets, which bear the Nazi swastika and the simply vile message, "Send the Jews to the ovens", have been distributed to Jewish families in my constituency, some of whom lost relatives in the Nazi ovens in the period of the Hitlerite regime? Would she also bear in mind that these leaflets are causing considerable concern in Newcastle, because they are also being sent to the homes of people who lost relatives in the struggle to outlaw Fascism in the Second World War?

Mr. Thomas: I know that the whole House finds this sort of thing offensive, as does the public. Some 60 people in Newcastle received anti-semitic leaflets through the post in the early weeks of February. The police are not aware that any have been received since, and the matter seems to have died down. It would appear better at present to let it die down.

Mr. Randall: Is my hon. Friend aware that not only in Newcastle but in Gateshead there is a considerable circulation of these very vile documents? I have sent a sample to him, as he knows. Will he continue with all speed the inquiry which I have requested?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir.

Prisoners (Niven Craig and K. E. Holmes)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the offences for which Mr. Niven Craig and Mr. K. E. Holmes were sentenced; how long were the sentences, how long has each served, and how long each has served in a prison hostel.

Miss Bacon: Craig received sentences totalling 12 years' imprisonment for shop-breaking, assault with intent to rob and possessing housebreaking implements by night. These sentences, of which he has served 4 years 3 months, began when he had served 8 years of an earlier sentence. He has been in a prison hostel since 22nd December, 1964. Holmes has been detained for a total of 9 years 8 months on a sentence of life imprisonment for rape; he was in a prison hostel for two weeks in February, 1964.

Mr. Wall: Since Craig has a long series of sentences for serious crimes and Holmes, as the hon. Lady says, has been sentenced only once, is there not a strange discrepancy in the treatment afforded to these two men? Why has Holmes's licence been withdrawn? When will it be restored?

Miss Bacon: These two cases are not similar at all. Holmes was serving a life sentence; he was let out on licence and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, he failed to comply with the terms of the licence. Craig, who was not serving a life sentence, has been continuously in prison for 12 years, which is most exceptional, except in the case of a prisoner serving a life sentence.

Mr. Mawby: Could not the hon. Lady admit that Craig in fact is now for the second time on the hostel scheme? Is not this rather extraordinary, since at the moment the term of his sentence should in fact take him to about 1973?

Miss Bacon: Yes. Craig has been treated exceptionally and, as I tried to point out in the previous reply on the case, this is an exceptional case in that he has been in prison for 12 years and, as far as I am aware, there is no other prisoner in any prison in the country who has been in that number of years other

than a life prisoner. Although he may have been treated exceptionally, this was a rather exceptional case.

South African Students (Nuclear Physics)

Mr. Ennals: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, when considering applications from South African nationals for permits to study in this country, he will keep a record of those wishing to undergo courses in nuclear physics.

Mr. George Thomas: There is no system of permits for foreign students; a South African wishing to come here to study would, however, need to obtain leave to land from an immigration officer at the port of arrival. My right hon. and learned Friend is not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for maintaining at the ports a special record of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ennals: Is the Minister aware that there is a quite substantial number of South African scientists who are training in this country in nuclear physics at Harwell, the Imperial College, and other institutions? Is he not aware that we may be unwittingly helping South Africa eventually to become a nuclear Power? Is he not aware also that all of these are white South Africans and not black South Africans? Ought we not at least to keep a record of those who are here?

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. and learned Friend and the Government have no reason to suppose that the Government of South Africa are likely to undertake the manufacture of nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future. There is no question of race arising here on the admissions, because our immigration officers certainly treat anybody who is able to come from South Africa on the same basis.

Sir C. Osborne: Would the hon. Gentleman reject this demand for racial prejudice? Will he bear in mind that it is as yet no crime to have a white face in England?

Mr. Thomas: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's attitude against racial intolerance and I think it would be wiser to leave it there.

GOVERNMENT SURPLUS GOODS (PUBLIC AUCTIONS)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister if he will provide facilities for a small party of Members to attend as observers at a selected number of public auctions of Government surplus goods.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir. I suggest my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member interested makes arrangements initially with the Ministry of Defence, which has much the biggest commitment in this field.

Mr. Dodds: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply. I would ask him to look into what the Navy does with surplus goods, because the Written Answer to my Question of 12th March suggests that, unlike other Service and Civil Departments, the Navy does not have any surplus goods? Does this mean that Old Moore is on the staff to forecast accurate ordering, or is it taken out to sea and dumped? What happens to it?

The Prime Minister: I do not think my hon. Friend should read quite so much into this Answer. The position is that, when the Navy Department has any surplus stocks, it calls for tenders through Press advertisements and surpluses are then sold to the highest bidder. I think I am right in saying that this has been investigated over a period of years by the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Lubbock: Am I right in assuming that only a very limited number of people attend the auctions of Service property? If so, might it not be a good idea if, instead of having public auctions, the Service Departments first offered these goods for sale by public tender and then sent catalogues round to this limited number of potential purchasers asking them to make the highest bid they could?

The Prime Minister: I have said on previous occasions that we are looking yet again into the question of the disposal of surplus stores. As I have said, over a period of years the P.A.C. has looked into this question. If there is a feeling that too few people attend these auctions, at least we have now the assurance that the

numbers will be increased by the attendance not only of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) but of other hon. Members who would like to see what goes on.

CHINA

Mr. Jackson: asked the Prime Minister whether having regard to Great Britain's röle in East-West relations, he will arrange an early visit to Peking by himself or a Minister from the Foreign Office.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade visited China recently. It would not be possible either for me or for a Foreign Office Minister to go at this time.

Mr. Jackson: I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. Would he not agree that in any final Far Eastern solution a committed signature by China is essential? Because of this, would he not agree that Britain, with its present unique rôle in the Far Eastern crisis, could help by sending a representative to get a non-committed, un-Communist view of the attitude of Hanoi and Peking?

The Prime Minister: I think that in any final settlement of particularly the Vietnam situation, though this goes wider than Vietnam, it would be highly desirable, indeed essential, to have China committed to whatever solution is reached. However, we have a long way to go before we get to that situation. At the moment, one of the difficulties is getting a line out to Hanoi and to Peking. But I do not want to say anything about that this afternoon.

Mr. Ridsdale: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the quickest way to reach a peaceful solution in the difficult situation in the Far East is to stand united with our allies and not to try to kick the ball publicly into our own goal, as some Government supporters are doing?

The Prime Minister: I have said on a number of occasions that this situation is a bit too serious for that kind of comment. I hope that the whole House will realise, particularly since we now have to carry the whole burden of what should


be the duty of the combined co-chairmen, that we have a very difficult röle to fulfil and neither that statement nor weekend speeches about "craven Members of Parliament" will help.

Sir A. Douglas-Home: As the Prime Minister has mentioned "craven Members of Parliament", will he allow me to say what I meant? The words I used were applied to those members of the Socialist Party, either in this House or outside, who are willing to shelter under the nuclear umbrella of the United States but whenever the United States stands between aggression and the free world are ready to stab them in the back.

The Prime Minister: While I personally am delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place this afternoon—and we are all united on that on this side of the House—I would just say this to the right hon. Gentleman: that all of us are anxious to find a settlement of the Vietnam situation. The right hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends were only too ready to stab the United States in the back when the party opposite were breaking the rule of law over Suez a few years ago.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the Prime Minister remember that it was I who signed—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Munich."]—and led a British delegation at the successful conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Munich."]—of the Laos negotiations?

Hon. Members: "Munich."

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the House desires to get through more Questions, but if it thinks that repetitive interruption assists in the matter I would respectfully disagree.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Would the Prime Minister recall that I led the British team at the successful negotiations when we were using British diplomacy to come to an honourable settlement of the Laos negotiations, and will the right hon. Gentleman get together with the Russian co-chairman and our American allies to sec whether this cannot be repeated?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and we are using British diplomacy to get a solution of a very difficult situation to-

day and I hope that we shall have the help of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. I hope also that we shall have the help of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), if the Leader of the Opposition is not too craven to put him in his place.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Zilliacus, Question No. 3.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. My voice evidently does not penetrate. Mr. Zilliacus.

PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT DE GAULLE (TALKS)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether, on his visit to Paris, he will propose to President de Gaulle that there should be Anglo-French discussions on how to co-ordinate the policies of the two countries and act jointly on such issues as German participation in the control of nuclear weapons, recognition of Germany's existing frontier, an Anglo-Franco-Soviet initiative to convene a Vietnam peace conference and the neutralisation of South-East Asia.

The Prime Minister: My talks with General de Gaulle will, of course, be confidential. But on the first and second parts of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies to his Questions on 16th and 23rd March.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that France occupies a key position in Europe and that it would be worth while trying to reach agreement with President de Gaulle on the basis of policies to which Labour was committed before the election rather than failing to reach agreement by abandoning those policies?

The Prime Minister: Yes, France occupies a very central röle in Europe and so, may I say, does this country. I do not remember, however, that in our policy, whether in the manifesto or elsewhere, we were going to seek a joint Anglo-French declaration on this question.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Quite apart from the successful delegations with


which the Leader of the Opposition was associated in 1938, may I ask whether, if my right hon. Friend accepts the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus), he will take steps to protect himself from any accusation by the Spectator that he is thereby compromising his political integrity?

The Prime Minister: I disregard anything said in the Spectator as much as I do anything said by its editor.

VIETNAM

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister, in the light of British co-chairmanship of the Geneva Conference, if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Franco-Soviet mediation in Vietnam.

The Prime Minister: I have seen reports of consultations on Vietnam between the French and Soviet Governments but I have not seen that these have yet led to any specific proposals. Indeed, Mr. Gromyko made it clear, in his response to our own ideas and when he was in London, that the Soviet Government were not yet ready to co-operate in constructive measures to promote a negotiated settlement. Our own policy remains to continue contact and consultation with those most involved in an effort to discover whether there might be a possible basis for a negotiated settlement.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Prime Minister for that Answer. May I also congratulate him and the Foreign Secretary, whom I am glad to see back from Washington, on very firm support of American policy in Vietnam? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the great danger in Vietnam is that the situation could get out of control so that events are in charge of policies instead of the other way round?
Would not the Prime Minister agree that it is important at this stage that we should inject a new element into this situation? Would not he agree that the French suggestion, which I understand has been made, that the eventual political basis for negotiation might be the unification of North and South Vietnam—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Those sound like matters of opinion and argument. Perhaps the Prime Minister would be good enough to answer the supplementary question as far as we have got.

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the three points raised. First, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) for what he has said about my right hon. Friend's mission to Washington. I think that the whole House will endorse all that my right hon. Friend said there, not only what the hon. Member has drawn attention to but also his frank statement about the necessity to consult us and other allies and the world in general about actions to be taken. I think that my right hon. Friend's words have been very valuable and that we all endorse them.
I, of course, agree, and I have said it many times, that when this thing has got into this very substantial change on both sides there is a continuing danger here. This is why we are taking the initiative to which I referred on Tuesday. I am not clear that further French initiative will help here, because up to now the Russians have said, "No talks except on certain conditions", and the Americans, "No talks except on different conditions". Therefore, I am not sure that the French initiative will help in this matter.

Mr. Maudling: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Foreign Secretary's statement yesterday that Britain wholly supports American action in Vietnam is the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Will he also confirm that this statement had no reservations at all?

The Prime Minister: I have said a number of times in this House, and my right hon. Friend repeated it yesterday, that we fully support the action of the United States in resisting aggression in Vietnam, but my right hon. Friend said the other day, and I hope that he was speaking for the whole House, that we had certain reservations which he frankly expressed—and he made this very clear —on one particular action. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman equally supports what my right hon. Friend said on Tuesday as well as what he said on Wednesday.

Mr. Warbey: On Britain's mediatory role in Vietnam, can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the light of fresh revelations in the Press today of the increasing use of appalling, inhuman methods of warfare by American forces in South Vietnam and by the military junta in Saigon, he continues to support American military policy in South Vietnam?

The Prime Minister: As I made clear on Tuesday, all war is horrible, and some pretty horrible weapons are being used that no one on either side of the House will welcome or want to see continuing to be used. But I do not take the same myopic view of the atrocities or of the horror weapons and methods used in Vietnam which is taken by my hon. Friend. There are some extremely serious things being done on the other side in Vietnam, and this is why we want to stop all the fighting and all the use of all the weapons.

Mr. Grimond: Will the prime Minister make clear that those who express some reservations about the policy of the Americans in Vietnam are not necessarily anti-American? Very grave reservations are expressed continually in responsible quarters in America itself. Will the Prime Minister agree that the danger we run is that we may drive the Russians back into the worst attitudes of the cold war if we are not very careful and allow he situation to reach a condition in which there is no end, and will he take it that there is a widespread desire that the conflict should end in a politically negotiated settlement and that, however necessary it may he to resist aggression, in the end force will not settle it?

The Prime Minister: I have said a number of times that all of us in the country and in the House want to see a settlement, though we may have different views about it. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that one of the purposes of an alliance and friendship is having the ability to speak frankly to one another—agreeing on the basic issues, but being free to speak. I expressed the view on Tuesday that anything to he said on this should be said preferably in private rather than in any sort of public argument. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about that. The only people I am not clear about in that respect are certain Members of the Opposition Front Bench

who, apparently, do not seem to have any of the thoughts which have been expressed either by the right hon. Gentleman or by other hon. Members.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Of course, everybody in all parts of the House wants to see a political settlement of this matter. All I ask the Prime Minister now is this. Although we quite understand that there are certain things which cannot be said in public, will he arrange that, when the Foreign Secretary speaks next week or if he himself takes part in the debate, we shall be told as much as the Government can possibly say about their negotiatiations with Mr. Gromyko and their talks in the United States?

The Prime Minister: We shall certainly do that. I made a short reference to these matters on Tuesday in answer to Questions. I agree with hon. Members who worry about the length of some answers and some questions, and it is not always possible to say very fully at Question Time what one wants to say on this. I hope that, when the debate takes place on Vietnam, both my right hon. Friend and I myself will be able to give as clear a picture to the House as is possible on both the Gromyko talks and the other aspects.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden: ): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 29TH MARCH—Lords Amendment to the Ministerial Salaries and Members" Pensions Bill.
Second Reading of the Monopolies and Mergers Bill.
TUESDAY, 30TH MARCH—Motion on the Post Office.
WEDNESDAY, 31st MARCH—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: Committee which, if the Committee agree, will be taken formally to allow debate on an Opposition Motion on Agriculture and the Farm Price Review.
THURSDAY, 1ST APRIL—Debate on Foreign Affairs, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the Double Taxation Relief (Federal Republic of Germany) Order, 1965, and on the Central Banks (Income Tax Schedule C Exemption) Order, 1965.
FRIDAY, 2ND APRIL—Private Members" Motions.
MONDAY, 5TH APRIL—The proposed business will be: Second Reading of the Rent Bill.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is the Leader of the House aware that we shall wish to hear what the Postmaster-General has to say this afternoon before we decide on the form the debate may take on Tuesday?

Mr. Bowden: Yes, Sir, that is appreciated. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, equally, that the Post Office has to have a particular Motion, which could, perhaps, be taken formally before the general debate.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Could my right hon. Friend arrange for the foreign affairs debate to be extended until 11 p.m., as many hon. Members will want to take part?

Mr. Bowden: I should like to be able to oblige the House in this matter, but there are certain difficulties. Both my right hon. Friends, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, have to leave for Paris immediately after ten o'clock that night. It would be extremely difficult to extend the debate beyond ten o'clock, particularly if the Prime Minister should wish to wind up.

Mr. Neave: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government take steps to safeguard private Members' time tomorrow?

Mr. Bowden: The Government are always very well aware of the importance of safeguarding private Members' time, but it is really a matter for the House.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that private Members' time on the Consolidated Fund Bill is just as important as private Members' time tomorrow? Can he give an

assurance that the Minister of Public Building and Works or some other Minister will now be responsible for answering Questions about the Palace of Westminster and, in particular, which, and how many, people live here, and precisely why?

Mr. Bowden: It is usual on the Consolidated Fund Bill, at least on the second day, that is, on the Third Reading day, for the whole day to be thrown open at the request of the Opposition, as on this occasion, to back benchers who may wish to raise particular subjects. This is to happen today and, perhaps, tonight.
On the second point, I propose soon to move for a Select Committee to be set up to advise Mr. Speaker under the new procedure on the way the House of Commons side of the Palace of Westminster should be controlled.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Leader of the House aware that we are still concerned about the selection of members for Committees? Could he find time in which we could discuss this matter which, I think, arouses some interest on both sides of the House?

Mr. Bowden: Yes, Sir, I think that there is a difficulty here. We are bound by Standing Order No. 61, which may well be looked at by the Select Committee on Procedure. I appreciate that, since yesterday, the representation of the Liberal Party is now 1 in 63 instead of 1 in 70.

Mr. A. Henderson: As all Conservative members of the Committee of Privileges voted yesterday in the Division on the Motion concerning my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), will the Leader of the House advise the House whether it is customary for any member of the Committee of Privileges to vote on a Motion for or against a reference to that Committee?

Mr. Speaker: That can hardly arise on next week's business.

Sir C. Osborne: Could the Leader of the House find time, if not next week then the week after, to discuss the serious position of forward sterling which is now at 8 per cent. discount for one month to three months ahead, despite the hundreds of millions of pounds we have spent to


support it, so that we may be better able to understand the measures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will propose to deal with this serious situation?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise any time this side of Easter, but it is a subject which the hon. Gentleman could very appropriately raise on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. A. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood the Leader of the Liberal Party to ask a question about the composition of Committees, which does not seem to me to have any more reference to business next week than my question.

Mr. Speaker: That may probably be so, but I live in hope that we shall gradually get more and more in order as we go on.

Mr. Grimond: My question was directed to certain Motions on the Order Paper, and I take it that we are entitled, during discussion of the business of the House, to ask whether time may be found to debate them. Surely that is perfectly proper.

Mr. Speaker: I am not joining in anyone's criticism. I find it difficult to remember what Motions remain on the Paper and what do not.

Sir F. Bennett: I appreciate the reason why we cannot have an hour's extension next Thursday, but does not the Leader of the House think, in that case, that we ought to start the business earlier and readjust the week's business so that we may have a full two-day debate on Wednesday and Thursday, since he is just as anxious as we are that every shade of opinion in his party should have opportunity for expression?

Mr. Bowden: I agree that it is usual to have a two-day debate on foreign affairs. There is advantage in this over having two separate days. But, when there are two-day debates on foreign affairs, the Opposition of the day usually give one of the two. There is an Opposition Supply day next week on the Farm Price Review. If representations are made through the usual channels, I am prepared to meet them.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend use his influence with the Select said before, but I nevertheless appreciate

Committee on Procedure to expedite a decision on the problem of Question Time in the House of Commons?

Mr. Bowden: The matter is before the Select Committee on Procedure. I specially wrote to the Clerk of the Committee drawing attention to it. I have no information when it is likely to report.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about next Thursday's business and discuss with the Prime Minister the question of the extra hour? Paris is only 250 miles away. The Prime Minister and his colleagues could have a Royal Air Force aircraft to take them over immediately after the debate, or they could get up earlier the next morning.

Mr. Bowden: If one hour makes all the difference, I am prepared to look at the matter again.

Mr. Strauss: Can my right hon. Friend give us any information about the prospect of a fairly early debate on policy on the arts?

Mr. Bowden: I was hoping to fit in a debate, even if only a half-day debate, between now and the Easter Recess, but I cannot promise it firmly.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Further to my right hon. Friend's point about the composition of Committees, about which we have a Motion on the Order Paper:

[That this House regrets that only one Liberal Member was called on the Second Reading of the Highland Development (Scotland) Bill, a Bill which affects only six constituencies, of which four are represented by Liberals.]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to do some arithmetic, is he aware that in the Scottish Standing Committee the Opposition now consists of 15 or 16 Conservative Members and one Liberal Member, although there are now five Liberal Members in Scotland? Is he aware that this is causing deep concern all over Scotland and, indeed, on his own side of the House? Can he tell us when we can debate this very serious injustice?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot possibly promise a debate on the subject, as I have that there has been a slight change in the


representation in Scotland. The House cannot change the procedure simply by a debate on its own without some reference to the Select Committee on Procedure. It has done this on occasions, but, generally, with a matter of this sort the Select Committee ought to look at the matter previously.

Mr. Warbey: With further reference—

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not particularly unusual for a Motion of this sort to remain on the Order Paper for any length of time?

Mr. Speaker: That cannot in any view be a point of order. I wish hon. Members would be careful about this. We have enough difficulty without that.

Mr. Warbey: With further reference to the question of the composition of Committees, can my right hon. Friend say how, in view of the behaviour of the right hon. and learned Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) yesterday afternoon, it is possible for hon. Members of the House to bring about the discharge of a right hon. Member from a Select Committee?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very remarkable. The hon. Member has been here for a long time. If he wanted to criticise the conduct of another hon. Member, he would have to do it on a substantive Motion. He cannot do it by way of a supplementary question on a business question.

Mr. Warbey: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was asking for the guidance of the Leader of the House precisely as to how this could be done.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that I have assisted the hon. Gentleman in his inquiry.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Further to the point raised from the Liberal benches, is the Leader of the House aware that the Tory Party has a majority in England over all other parties put together? Can we, therefore, have a Tory majority, please, on all English Bills?

Mr. Bowden: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to recognise, if he ever

knew, that the matter to which we are referring is specifically Scottish legislation.

Mr. Shinwell: With regard to the foreign affairs debate which is to take place next Thursday, and my right hon. Friend's apparent acquiescence in the suggestion that the time might be extended for one hour, is he aware that on the last occasion when this was agreed only two hon. Members spoke in the last hour? Is he aware that if the time is extended very few additional hon. Members will be able to speak? Therefore, is it worth while extending the time?

Mr. Bowden: I think that we may look at the whole question in considering whether or not we should extend for one hour on Thursday next.

Mr. Box: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the White Paper on steel nationalisation, foreshadowed by the Prime Minister last week, is likely to be published? Will he confirm that we shall have the opportunity of debating it? In view of the Government's apparent anxiety to get the legislation through, can he say why the intentions are being published in the form of a White Paper rather than a steel Bill?

Mr. Bowden: If we had introduced the Bill without a White Paper we should have been asked for a White Paper. I and my right hon. Friends think that it would be advisable in this case, and perhaps in many others, that a White Paper should come before the House before Second Reading. In that case there would be a debate on the White Paper. But I cannot promise it for next week.

Mr. Awdry: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to reconsider the decision to sit on Wednesday mornings in view of the fact that so few hon. Members opposite were able to be here yesterday morning?

Mr. Bowden: I think that we should give this procedure a run for several weeks before we propose to make any change.

Sir T. Beamish: Can we expect a statement next week about the future of the TSR2, which we have been awaiting for five months, and if it is not made next week, can the House have an absolute assurance that it will not be made during the Easter Recess, which some people think may well be the case?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise a statement next week, but I will promise that the statement will not be made during the Recess.

Mr. Monslow: May I take it that my right hon. Friend is not unaware that some of us were engaged on Standing Committees yesterday while the House was sitting in Committee?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must move on towards business.

POSTAL SERVICES

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
As I warned the House last November, I discovered upon taking office that the finances of the postal services were in a serious condition and were deteriorating. Projections over the five-year period then indicated a shortfall of more than £120 million below the target set by the previous Government. The latest assessment is that, in terms of their share of the Post Office financial target for file five years beginning 1963–64, there will be a cumulative shortfall amounting to about £32 million at the end of this month, about £64 million by March 1966, and about £150 million by March 1968.
This situation arises for two main reasons. First, there is an inherited burden due to the failure of the previous Government to take obviously necessary steps at the proper time. Secondly, there is the fundamental character of the postal services, with their heavy dependence on men to collect, handle and deliver the mail, which makes it very difficult to absorb rapidly rising costs, especially in the field of wages.
The first and most important task is, therefore, to improve the productivity and profitability of the postal services. I have accordingly commissioned a fundamental and far-reaching examination of the problem by Messrs. McKinsey—the eminent management consultants. We have proposed a joint working party with the staff to work in parallel with

them. I shall also press forward with modernisation, to speed up postal mechanisation and prepare the way for its more effective application by firmly encouraging the use of standardised envelopes and progressively extending the use of postal codes to the country as a whole.
But these and other measures which I have in mind cannot yield the substantial sums now required to meet the shortfall. Nor would drastic and immediate cuts in service provide a remedy even if they were acceptable to the community. The telecommunications services are in no position to fill the gap—even if it were right for them to do so—because they are only just about achieving the financial target themselves.
The Government have, therefore, reluctantly concluded that an increase in postal charges is inescapable. The extent of this increase has been decided in the light of the Joint Statement of Intent on Productivity, Prices and Incomes. My colleagues and I thought it right that the principles of price reviews which it is intended to establish should be both tested out and applied as vigorously in this case as in the private sector. The proposals on productivity and modernisation must be seen in this context.
The main change proposed is an increase in the minimum charge for inland letters to 4d. The first weight step will, in future, be 2 oz. thus actually reducing the cost of the 2 oz. letter by ½d. This is estimated to yield £21 million in a full year. Other proposed increases affect inland postcards, printed papers and samples, newspapers, parcels and express services. Commonwealth rates which are linked with inland rates will be brought into line, but, to help exporters, overseas rates generally will not be increased. I propose altogether to abolish inland charges on articles for the blind.
The total yield of the changes is estimated to be £37 million in a full year. These changes will come into force on 17th May next.
A White Paper, giving details of the proposed changes and explaining the situation more fully, is now available in the Vote Office. Regulations to give effect to the proposals are being laid before Parliament today.

Sir P. Rawlinson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the statement which he made in November, and to which he has now referred, was challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) as being misleading? Is not this proposal for an overall increase a very clumsy and drastic thing to do over the whole of the postal services when the letter and postcard rate is earning a profit?
Is he aware of the resentment which will be aroused by this increase in charges in an organisation which is making a profit and at a time when the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary is continually urging employers and employees to keep prices down?

Mr. Benn: The state and the finances of the postal services were very well known to the previous Government, who chose not to make them known to the public. The shortfall over the five-year period makes nonsense of the Conservative claim during the election to have costed their own programme.
The point about raising the revenue on the first-class letter is that since the last increase first-class letter costs have risen 25 per cent. and on our estimate it is calculated that the profitability of the first-class letter will have fallen to about £400,000 next year, whereas a 1 per cent. increase in pay amounts to £2 million for the Post Office. The fact is that the shortage of staff, which is not unconnected with remuneration for the postal
services, is becoming very acute. The postal services need more money to finance mechanisation, which is the only way in which we can provide the postal services which are needed for the future.
As to public opinion, at the time of the postal dispute, last July, there was a public opinion survey as a result of which 64 per cent. of the people asked said that they were in favour of increased charges if they were necessary to meet the postmen's wage claim.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while appreciating the difficulty which he experienced on taking office, many hon. Members on this side of the House will view with alarm the increase in the postal charges? Is he also aware that this could be used as an excuse by many manufacturers to in-

crease the cost of their goods out of all proportion to their increased postage costs?

Mr. Benn: Nobody likes an increase of prices of any sort or kind, but the House has consistently gone on record on the basis that the Post Office should be run on a proper business basis, and in these circumstances there is no alternative to this increase.

Mr. Hogg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's failure to absorb increased costs in marked contrast to the policy of the Government towards farmers, shopkeepers and manufacturers?

Mr. Benn: Even if the postal services were reduced to one delivery a day—and it would take two or three years to introduce a cut of this kind, which would be quite unacceptable—that would save about £15 million as against a shortfall of well over £100 million left by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friends when they left office.

Mr. Driberg: In the interests of a good many thousand families in this country, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no increase in the charge for Forces air mail?

Mr. Benn: There is no increase in the overseas charges. We have made that decision partly with that thought in mind and partly with a view to the export position.

Mr. Mawby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his opening remarks, as in last November, he ran into the danger of misleading the House by quoting figures of losses which separate different sectors of the Post Office when taking into account the 8 per cent. on net assets? Does he know of any other nationalised industry which is expected to make this amount on net assets? Does he intend in future to make certain that every sector earns 8 per cent. on net assets? If so, what does he intend to do about public telephone kiosks, telegrams and many other services with a social content?

Mr. Benn: Of all hon. Members in the House I suppose that the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) ought to have known the position better than anyone,


because he knew exactly what the situation was.
The finances of posts and telephones have always been separately treated, for one is a labour intensive industry and the other is a highly capitalised industry. If the hon. Member studies the Press hand-out, handed out by Conservative Central Office when Mr. Bevins first assumed office, he will see that it said:
We ought to aim at making each individual service ray for itself.
I can refer the hon. Gentleman to that hand-out.

Mr. Randall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to make almost free postage to the blind will be widely and warmly appreciated? Is he aware that it was the Tory Government who were responsible for commercialising the Post Office and expecting it to be self-financing and to make about 8 per cent. on capital invested? Is he aware that towards the end of 1963–64, when it was evident that there ought to be an increase in postal charges, the then Government did not make the increase?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says about articles for the blind which, I hope, will be generally welcomed. It is a fact that this is not a very large increase compared with the increases made in previous years by the party opposite, in earlier years before the oncoming of the 1964 General Election. The profit now expected on first-class letters is below that for 1959–60 and 1960–61.

Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, first, that the increase will enable him to review the wages of postal workers? Secondly, what arrangements will be made for amending postal stamp machines? Thirdly, what will be the costs of employing a firm of consultants? Fourthly, why was an American instead of a British firm engaged for this purpose?

Mr. Benn: To answer the last question first, we picked the firm which we thought best able to handle a job of this kind. We are now in receipt of, or just about to receive, a report of the study group on postal pay which was set up last July at the time of the industrial action.
The machines will continue to provide ½d., 1d. and 2d. stamps. There will be no necessity to make changes.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It looks as though we may have a chance to debate this on a Question at a not so remote time.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Richard Marsh): On a point of order. Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) referred to comments which I made in the Sunday Telegraph of 28th May, 1961. My remarks as reported in column 588 of yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT are inaccurate in that I am reported as having said:
I visited all three territories in the Central African Federation and took part in 35 meetings with various groups that included Sir Roy Welensky, Sir Edgar Whitehead, Mr. Kenneth Kaunda and others."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1965; Vol. 709, col. 588.]
The whole point of these remarks was to support the argument that Members could travel on sponsored visits abroad and still insist on seeing those whose views were diametrically opposed to those of the people who were sponsoring the visit. Because of this, I desire to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly quoted me as saying that:
I visited all three territories in the Central African Federation and took part in 35 meetings with various groups that included Sir Roy Welensky, Sir Edgar Whitehead, Mr. Kenneth Kaunda and political prisoners at Marrendalas.
This may seem a small matter, but the whole point of the argument was that I had seen both sides.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The requisite correction will be made. He will appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to hear Members, particularly when they are quoting.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Peter Michael Kirk, esquire, for Saffron Walden.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is that the Bill—I am sorry; Sir Edward Boyle.

Orders of the Day — HIGHER EDUCATION

4.4 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I have feeling that there may come a time in the early hours of tomorrow morning when some Members will wish that the Question you were about to put, Mr. Speaker, had been carried.
As this is the first education debate since the appointment of the Secretary of State, I think that I should be voicing the feelings of the whole House if I welcomed him warmly to his present appointment. His contributions to our debates have always been greatly admired by Members on both sides of the House.
It is 18 months since the publication of the Robbins Report on Higher Education and the announcement that the then Government accepted its target figures of expansion for 1967–68 and 1973–74. I hope that the House will feel that it is right that we should come back for half a day to this subject, for two reasons. First, we have had important statements on higher education in this Parliament. There was the statement by the present Foreign Secretary in December on the teacher-training colleges. More recently there was the wide-ranging statement by the Secretary of State on universities and teacher supply on 24th February.
There is a second reason why I think that we should come back to this subject. The Robbins Committee never considered that its Report should be the last word. Hon. Members may well recall that Chapter XVII of the Report suggested the setting up of what it called
an authoritative and permanent body that could be asked from time to time to review the whole of higher education.
I think that it is right that Parliament should from time to time consider, as I now propose to do, first, the total provision at which we are aiming and,

secondly, the contribution of the various component parts of our system of higher education—the universities, the colleges of advanced technology which are just about to get university status, the technical colleges and, finally, the colleges of education. I will say a word about the contribution of each in turn.
I deal, first, with the total provision. The Secretary of State said in his statement in February that the Government accepted the objectives of 390,000 places in higher education by 1973–74 and 218,000 places in the universities. I should like to make two comments on that statement. First, I think that these figures have already been rendered obsolete, to some extent, by the march of events since the Robbins Report was published. After all, the targets in the Report were based on the assumption that 10·8 per cent. of the university age group would get two or more A levels by 1973.
Volume 3 of the statistics of the Department of Education and Science show that the figure of 10·8 per cent. is already out of date. The new prediction is 13 per cent., which is higher than the highest unpublished projection which Professor Moser and his statistical team considered possible when the Robbins Report was being prepared. It is not only higher than the earlier figure; it is higher than the highest projection considered possible at that time.
I do not want to stimulate yet one more of those leading articles in The Times, so may I make it clear at the start of this debate that no one is saying that two A levels should automatically qualify a pupil for university entry. The point about the two A levels is that it is the minimum qualification for university entry, and surely the trend in the numbers achieving it is a perfectly reasonable guide to the scale of higher education required. The whole point of the Robbins proposals—I think with respect, that this has been forgotten by some critics—was that it would have been wrong and grossly unfair to the schools to have allowed competition for university entry to grow still more acute than it was already. I believe that this was the right approach and that we should continue to use it as the basis of policy.
There is a second comment which I should like to make about the total


provision. The Secretary of State's statement contained, 1 believe, one internal inconsistency of some importance. The right hon. Gentleman said that he accepted the total figure of 390,000 places and announced that 120,000 of those places would be in colleges of education. When one adds the 218,000 places in universities, it means on his figures that only 50,000 students will be taking full time courses of advanced study in regional and area technical colleges in 1973–74.
I will return to the very important part which these colleges have to play, but on that figure of 50,000 I can only say, in the words of, I think, Dr. Johnson, "Sir, do not let yourself be imposed on by such an absurdity". The numbers of students in those colleges taking full-time higher education will already have exceeded 50,000 in two years' time and there will be, on present projections, at least 70,000 by 1973–74.
Therefore, in my view, not only should the Government be ready to revise their total forecast upwards in response to steadily improving standards in the school, but I believe that even our existing plans imply a total of more than 390,000 in full time higher education by 1973–74.
Before I come to the component parts and start discussing the universities, I should like to welcome the fact that we now have not only one single Secretary of State for the whole of higher education, but the fact that there is one single permanent Secretary, one accounting officer, for the whole Department. I always believed that the two "units" must be a transitional phase which could last long. And I believe that academic freedom and all that goes with it is not inconsistent with a sense of social responsibility among autonomous institutions; nor is it incompatible with a sense of responsibility to this House.
It seems to me however much we value academic freedom that it is right, at the same time, to have more opportunities of discussing university matters in the House and I was glad to find an indication from the right hon. Gentleman the other day, in answer to a quite reasonable question, if rather strongly expressed by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), that he is very much of this opinion.
Coming to the universities, I will speak, first, about the present and then say a word on the future. At present, we are engaged on the tremendous task of doubling university numbers within eight years and I believe I am right in saying, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm, that we are on target for the 1967–68 objective, in the progression towards the figures at which we are aiming for those years. I hope that the party opposite have discovered that they were quite wrong when they suggested in their election manifesto that the Robbins expansion was being financed on the principal of cramming in students regardless of research standards; because the recurrent grant for the present quinquennium was calculated on the basis that the staff-student ratio in British universities, among the best in the world, will be fully maintained notwithstanding the very rapid increase in numbers.
Looking to the future I feel that the House must, after reflection, agree with the Government's decision that "no more additional universities or accessions to university status will be needed for about 10 years" with the one exception of the possibility of a completely new technical university institution in the North-East. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman on 24th February was bound to be disappointing, but I personally believe that this was a right decision for a number of reasons.
The first which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned was the consideration of cost and the second, the fact that what might be called the "older" civic universities are expanding faster than we had expected. Certainly, last year, when considering details of the Robbins expansion I always looked upon myself as trustee most of all for the interests of the older civic universities which do not get nearly enough attention in our society relative to Oxford and Cambridge and to what are called the "new" universities. The older civic universities are bearing a great burden of expansion at the present time, and expanding faster than many people had expected. The "new" universities are also rapidly getting off the ground.
Above all, a most important point which has been rather missed by public opinion is that on the Robbins figures there were only just over 20,000 extra


numbers to play with between the 1967–68 target and the 1973–74 target. Even if, as I believe, it will have to be exceeded, and even if the difference turns out to be 25,000 or 30,000—something of that order —none the less, this not very large number of extra places will have to be divided among 41 existing institutions. That should be borne in mind by those who hope to see a number of other institutions raised to university status.
In the same way, I have no doubt that had my party formed the Government we should have reached the same decision of the basis of the so-called "SISTERS". I do not consider we need this new step in the hierarchy of university institutions and I feel that the whole SISTER concept was an attempt to regain what I venture to call the "Waverley-Cherwell" territory; because those two very distinguished men always wanted to concentrate applied science outside the universities. But this territory has now been abandoned. If one looks at the figures for Birmingham University, for example, one finds that in the year 1962–63 out of about 1,000 students entering, 267 entered to take courses in applied science.
I believe that this decision not to have a separate category of SISTERS was right. Equally, it was certainly right—and we should have done it—to build up the three special institutions, Imperial College, Manchester College of Science and Technology, and Strathclyde. Someone has said that we should give those three SISTERS "priority, though not sorority" and that is right. Of course, we are giving them priority. For instance between 1953 and 1968 Imperial College will have a capital building expansion programme of about £18½ million and its numbers will go up from 1,700 to 3,700. I hope that as far as Imperial College is concerned the right hon. Gentleman will not be put off by the Queen's Gate "lobby" which I see from this evening's paper has been very active. I myself was born in Queen's Gate, but I would hesitate to call it the most beautiful thoroughfare in London, as it has been described.
I am sure that hon. Members will hope that the right hon. Gentleman can say something more of his thinking on the new technological university for the North-East. As I answered the hon.

Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) in a discussion on the Appropriations Bill last July, I hope that without unfairness I can quote a point he made on that occasion in urging the claims of Tees-side. There is a very large concentration of population there without a university institution, and a great deal of capital intensive industry.
Looking again to the future the university building programmes are firm up to 1966–67, but the final figures for the university building programme from 1967 onwards, as we always said when we were the Government, must await the results of the present obsolescence exercise. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will maintain the position that he does not finally decide on the size of the programme until he knows the results of the obsolescence exercise and that that should apply also to the possibility of extra money, outside the normal recurrent grant, to bring older laboratories up to date. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made that point in the science debate last year. That should be included in the obsolescence exercise.
I would point to the right hon. Gentleman three questions about the universities. The first concerns the 1,500 empty places in science and technology. I am hoping that he will have something more to say to us on that. Certainly, as he fairly said, here is a case where the universities and the University Grants Committee have more than anticipated national needs and have, in effect, beaten the plans. But it is a worrying matter. After all, Table 8 of Volume 3 of the statistics shows in the sixth forms a rather disturbing relative swing away from science. The figures for A level physics were nearly 3,000 up between 1960 and 1961, but there was actually a slight fall in 1963 at a time when the total A levels went up by 12,000. The relative picture has changed a good deal, and, obviously, there is the danger here of a multiplier effect. If there is a change in the trend of those taking science and technology in the universities, this will be reflected back into sixth form teaching.
My second question is this: will the right hon. Gentleman go on being the Minister responsible for the work of the


Science Research Council and the Medical Research Council, parts of whose work ties in so closely with the universities? As I think the House knows, when the Research Council starts up a university project, there comes a moment at the end of each quinquennium when the question has to be asked: should this work go on? If the university and the Research Council agree that it should, they have the choice either of asking the U.G.C. that the project should enjoy the same priority as the university's existing commitments, or that it should rank among the university's new proposals.
This system works well, and universities welcome the opportunity of merging into their general work of teaching and research new initiatives sponsored by the Research Council. Therefore, despite all the persuasive and able advocacy of the Economist, I believe that there is a strong case for not splitting up ministerial responsibility in this field.
My last question on the universities is this: what about the trend of post-graduate work? Is it not true that a higher proportion of abler students than many people realise is now getting four or even five years almost automatically? If this is so, this has important implications for broader first degree courses.
Those are my points on the universities, though when I come to the technical colleges I shall deal with the difficult issue of the many proposals for links between universities and non-autonomous institutions.
Next, I come to the colleges of advanced technology. Many of these will very shortly achieve university status. Six or seven draft charters have already been seen by the U.G.C. and some of them, including the Birmingham charter, are on their way to the Privy Council. Fears have been expressed that the C.A.T.s, when they become universities, will tend to shift from what one might call their industrial orientation. I have considerable sympathy with these anxieties. One cannot over-rate the importance of the C.A.T.s as pace-makers in our system of technical education. They played a great part in encouraging sandwich courses. The number of full time and sandwich courses at the C.A.T.s was up from 9,000 in 1961, to 12,000 last year, and the same

is true of the Diplomas in Technology, which were running at the level of 129 in 1959–60, and 1,073 in 1963–64.
These anxieties may be exaggerated. It is obviously right that the C.A.T.s should broaden the base of their studies to include subjects like economics, social studies and languages. I think that for the most part the C.A.T.s do not want to become too academic. Certainly, the charter of the Birmingham College is specifically orientated towards industry and commerce, and, from my interesting experience of sitting on a selection board to choose the head of the department of general studies at the Birmingham College, I know that there was no desire, either on behalf of the principal, or on behalf of those who applied for the job, as it were, to get too academic and too remote from the general purposes of the college in the past. I also think that too much is being made of names and location. It is true that Battersea College is being renamed the University of Surrey, but there is a considerable concentration of light industry in the Guildford area.
But the pressures will be strong on the colleges when they receive their charters, to grow more academic, and I think that we ought to take seriously the article by Professor Sandford, in The Guardian recently on this subject. I hope that the colleges will continue to show the same sense of social responsibility that they have always shown, and that they will continue to lay stress on the sandwich course even if this means a good deal of tedious administrative work in finding the requisite places in industry. I hope, also, that they will concentrate on high level teaching as well as on learning and research. Obviously, the colleges cannot be just what they were before, plus the right to confer degrees—that would be unreasonable to expect—but their reputation should depend on their success in fostering what the Robbins Report rightly called the "new loook and new approach to education".
There is one other point in the Sandford article on which I should like to comment, where he talks about the need for industry—for firms which have worked in partnership with the colleges


to develop the appropriate new administrative style now that the C.A.T.s are becoming autonomous institutions.
Now I come to the contribution of the technical colleges. This contribution, as I said, was bigger than the right hon. Gentleman's statement supposed. The technical colleges are playing an increasingly important part in our society as a whole. In support of that statement I can quote a source which I am pleased to quote. Lord Bowden, the Minister of State, at Peterborough last Friday, said:
Since the White Paper on Technical Education of 1956, expenditure to the tune of nearly £200 million on technical colleges has been carried out or approved. This year the further education building programme is £17 million, next year £24 million, and the year after £27 million.
All those programmes were, of course, fixed before the election. We are having a big expansion in this sphere, and I think that the growth in the technical colleges, stimulated by the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, in his White Papers of 1956 and 1961, has been one of the most important elements of our educational progress since the war.
In the Robbins context, we naturally think mostly of the 25 regional technical colleges, but I think that one should not forget that a number of the 160 area colleges do a good deal of high level work as well. For example, the Constantine College, in Middlesbrough, makes a real contribution to full time higher education.
At this point, we are passing into what one might call the non-autonomous sector, the sector of higher education at present within the orbit of local education authorities. For my part I believe —and I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone would agree with me—that there is a continuing place for the non-autonomous sector within our national system of higher education.
This is an issue of very considerable importance because, as the House must be aware, there is a growing pressure on sixth formers to seek a university degree and nothing else as a recognition of both social and educational status, and there is a tendency for a number of professional bodies—I shall not particularise, but we know this is true—to cast their

qualifications for entry in terms exclusively of a university degree. I have considerable doubts about this.
It seems to me that there are real advantages in a system in which there are two routes to the higher levels of a considerable number of professions, and I have considerable sympathy with what the Association of Teachers and Technical Institutions has written about this. At present, in many cases there are two routes; a university degree, followed by a period of professional training, or, alternatively, a course of professional study and training councils closely integrated to the requirements of the particular profession in question. Having two routes is very often a good thing.
I am thinking, as we should all think, in terms of the students themselves. By 1980, we are likely to have about 350,000 students in full time higher education who will be the first generation in their families to go on to full-time higher education of some kind. I believe that that means that they will want high qualifications and good courses. Most of them will not want to engage in academic pursuits. They will want to be trained, as well as possible, for good jobs in administration, industry, commerce, art, maybe including industrial art, or the professions. This is where the non-autonomous technical colleges have a highly important part to play.
These colleges have always been closely associated with the world of work. They are more likely than are autonomous institutions to adapt in a responsible way to the new demands of what we expect to be a rapidly changing society. In saying this, I do not mean to devalue the importance of research, the enlargement of knowledge, or high academic standards. All these things are of high importance, and they are all to be found in regional colleges. I can think of a number of regional colleges where much valuable research is going on. But I question whether anything like all the students in higher education want to be within the orbit of institutions whose values are primarily academic.
In those circumstances, what can we do? First, we can recognise that the major technical colleges have their own distinctive role to play in our system of higher education. In this context, I was glad to read the report of a speech made


by the right hon. Gentleman recently to the Association of Principals of Technical Institutions. Referring to these colleges, he said:
I am certain that it would not be in the national interest or in the interests of the colleges themselves if they were to set out to duplicate the provision in the universities. Instead of imitating the universities, they must serve educational and social purposes which the universities cannot meet or meet as effectively.
Then, as reported in the third person:
In practice this meant, he thought, that at the advanced level the colleges should accept the primary responsibility for three important groups of student—those of degree standard who were qualified to enter universities but were better suited by the more vocational type of education traditionally offered in further education; those who needed courses of higher education of a less rigorous academic standard than the first group, and to whom the country must look for well-qualified men and women so badly needed in the all-important intermediate ranks of industry and commerce; and the tens of thousands of part-time students whose talents would otherwise he frustrated or wasted.
He went on to say:
This rather than development in parallel with the universities is the logic of the Robbins recommendation that further education should continue and expand as a separate sector of higher education and indeed the logic of the establishment of a separate degree system under the Council for National Academic Awards.
I fully endorse those words, as would my hon. Friends. They lead to my second suggestion that we should give the highest possible standing to the Council for National Academic Awards.
I would like to put two other suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman. First, we ought to consider the need for a regional organisation of non-autonomous higher education. That is a matter to which my hon. Friends think that we should give increasing attention. And here and now—because this would not be difficult—surely we could bring about by legislation statutory governing bodies for regional and area colleges, and colleges of education. At the moment, these governing, bodies, which are not provided for by statute, have to be, in law, subcommittees of education committees, whereas they should come under the umbrella of the further education subcommittees.
I should like to discuss this point with the Minister at some time. It is something that we could bring in without too much difficulty, possibly by way of a Private Member's Bill. If the proposal commended itself to the Government and to the House this would seem not to be a difficult or elaborate reform, and it would give a good deal of satisfaction.
It is against this background that we ought to consider what are sometimes called university take-over bids. There has been a suggestion that Warwick University should take over Lanchester College; that the University of Sussex should get within its orbit all the full-time higher education in the Brighton area; that there should be a link between Chelsea College and Hatfield, after Chelsea has moved to Hertfordshire. There has also been a bid to come together in the case of the Sir John Cass College and Northampton College. This is a very difficult issue.
I have considerable sympathy with the idea of experiment with new types of hybrid higher education institutions. A particularly strong case can be put forward in respect of some individual cases. We recognise that the Sir John Cass-Northampton case is a special one, and there is also, certainly, something to be said for the Warwick University-Lanchester College case, where each institution may not be able to exist independently without some wasteful duplication of provision. Again, there are often considerations of location and of history. There is a very strong case, on purely geographical and historical grounds, for a continuing link between the Birmingham College of Advanced Technology and the College of Commerce.
And then there is this rather awkward question. Can the Government, in the last analysis, prevent universities conferring degrees on institutions within the C.N.A.A. sector? All these are real points—and yet I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to resist what one might call a stampede in this direction. I hope that he will continue strongly to resist the proposition that only a university degree confers educational and social status. I have brought this matter into the open, because I hoped that it would be best to do so. These matters are being discussed. Many of the suggestions have some merit in


themselves, but I am sure that in this question the great thing for us to ensure as a House is that there should not be a stampede in the direction of suggesting that only a university degree can confer educational and social status. That would be wrong.
Lastly, I turn to the question of colleges of education. I want to say something about numbers, and about the economic aspect of the question. Many people were a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have made his announcement on numbers just before the National Advisory Council was due to report. How soon shall we have that report before us? Will the Minister make a statement in the light of its recommendation? The party opposite took a fairly strong line on teacher supply at the last election. It was the impression of many people who read its manifesto that class sizes could be brought down to a maxima of 30 all round, if not in this Parliament at any rate pretty soon in a future Parliament. The announcement that the right hon. Gentleman has made amounts only to aiming at class sizes of not more than 40 in 10 years from now.
Just as our projections of wastage in the past were optimistic, I believe that it is possible that they are now too pessimistic, and that perhaps one more heave in training college expansion, together with some other measures, could bring about reasonable class sizes by the later 1970s. In terms of educational importance this remains the most important issue of the lot. The greatest inequality in our education system today still lies between those who start with class sizes of 40 or more and those who start with class sizes of 20.
As for the statement made last autumn by the present Foreign Secretary, we all welcomed his decision regarding colleges of education and also his statement that wider opportunities should be provided for suitable training college students to obtain a degree, together with a professional teaching qualification, by means of a four-year course. I am also sure that his decision was right not to detach teacher training from the local education authorities, even though that decision was bound to be disappointing to the teaching profession and to the training colleges

themselves, besides institutes of education and the Robbins Committee.
In view of the rather strong letter which Lord Robbins wrote to The Times, I should like to say that I think that such a detachment was quite out of the question, in the middle of a large expansion of colleges and at a time when the problems of teacher supply clearly require the closest contact between the training system and those responsible for staffing the schools.
It may also be that some people are a little too pessimistic about the prospects for the colleges under the local authorities. Paragraph 346 of the Robbins Report shows that the colleges have made good progress since the McNair Report.
On administration of the colleges, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government:
 "… intend to secure that the present arrangements for the internal government of the colleges are reviewed forthwith by all those concerned in the light of the Robbins' Committee's recommendations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 1973.]
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman: how is this review going? Has it now got off the ground, because there have been rumours that the simple-seeming words, "All those concerned" have caused a certain amount of trouble. Is the right hon. Gentleman hopeful of resolving this difficulty?
On the academic side, I must say that I think the decision whether or not all degrees should be university degrees, in this sector, is much harder to decide in the context of teacher training than in the context of technical colleges. On the one side, it is true that, since the McNair Report 20 years ago, the training colleges have forged firm links with the universities. There has been participation by faculty members on boards of studies and the universities have been responsible for examining for what was the two-year course and is now the three-year course. I fully accept that there is scope for a considerable academic element in many training college courses. To take one case, obviously there is some scope for classical culture in a course for any teacher of physical education.
We all want to see standards raised in colleges of education and this applies to courses for primary teachers no less than for secondary teachers. There are boys


and girls with very high I.Q.s in primary schools, and there are what were rather well described to me as "darts of cognitive thought" from many boys and girls in primary schools. I should be the last to play down the importance of high standards of training for primary teachers.
But let us also remember that the Newsom Committee thought that college trained teachers had proved themselves better than graduates at meeting the need of secondary moderns. Surely, teacher training must be linked to the real world within which children live, rather than to academic studies as such. In other words, teacher training must be not just about learning, but about children. If all teachers are to be trained within the orbit of the universities, could this produce the full range of the teachers which we shall require?
We surely need to broaden the base of our supply of teachers and not to rule out the possibility of a technical college within the orbit of the Council for National Academic awards, offering a course leading to a B.Ed. I am not yet convinced, even as a long-term objective, of the desirability of aiming at a university degree for all teachers. In any case, I would say that compulsory training for all graduates ought to have considerable priority, in time, over the objective of degrees of any sort for all teachers.
I have spoken about the whole field of higher education without speaking about cost. But we must realise, as a House, the need to secure the best value for money, to look at such things as the cost of residence and to recognise the dangers of continually adding recurrent costs to education, which will only have, in any community and under any Government, the effect of capital expansion being less than it might otherwise have been. Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping to the present figure of, in effect, an increase of 6 per cent. in a year in real terms for education as a whole? As I see it, that will mean a proportion for education of just over 6 per cent. of the gross national product in 1970 devoted to the education service.
Let us always remember and remind other people that education is investment as well as consumption. It is not just consumption, using up national resources; it is sowing the seeds of a

higher national income later on. This applies to part-time further education as well as to full-time higher education. It is important to remember that we shall have the full-time equivalent of half a million young people in our technical colleges in two years, and possibly a more rapid growth still, as day release responds to the Industrial Training Act, which I think is a very important Measure.
I think that we are justified, as a community, in giving high priority to the education service, for three reasons: First, education is highly significant to an industrial country like our own, at a time of rapid technological change; secondly, it is right, for its own sake, to develop the potential talents and abilities of young people; thirdly, and not least, young people are themselves determined to achieve qualifications as a means to securing for themselves fuller and more satisfying lives.
It is against these considerations that we as a House ought to look, and regularly look, at the progress of higher education.

4.46 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I should like to start by saying how obliged I am to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for his kind remarks, and how glad we are to see him back in the educational field also. I think, without any disrespect to any of his colleagues, that he knows more about this subject than anyone else on the benches opposite, and, indeed as much as anyone in the House. I hope that he remains a Shadow Minister of Education for a very long time.
Listening to his speech, I found it hard to disagree with what he was saying. This was partly because he was in a rather more expansive frame of mind than he was almost exactly three years ago to this day, on 9th April, 1962, when he took part, as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in a most notorious debate on the universities. This was at the beginning of the pay pause and in the middle of a balance of payments crisis, when the Conservatives were taking things out, to some extent, on education. The Conservative Government had just rejected the advice of the U.G.C. on the rate of university expansion and the debate very largely


revolved—this is interesting in retrospect —around the question of how many university places there could be or should be in 1966–67. The then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) took part. His speech so disgusted—or so it appeared to us on the Opposition benches—Lord Eccles, who was then Minister of Education, that he walked out halfway through with an expression of fastidious distaste on his face. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth also spoke, as I say, as Financial Secretary. He said that 150,000 places for 1966–67 was the absolute maximum which we could possibly achieve. He said:
In my view his represents the fastest practicable rate of university expansion, and no one conversant with our universities has ever suggested that they could be expanded at a faster rate".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 772.]
That is, 150,000 for 1966–67. Mr. Gaitskell, who led for the Opposition, suggested, on the contrary, that the universities could achieve 180,000, for which he was derided in a number of speeches from the other side of the House. It is interesting that the actual figure will be over 185,000, which suggests that nobody opposite was conversant with the actual position. Since then, the right hon. Member has become an ardent expansionist which I am delighted about. No doubt he has been rebuked by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) for his timid, reactionary and illiberal views on education. So today we see him in a very expansionist frame of mind.
The right hon. Gentleman started off with one or two general points, before coming down to particulars. He said that he would welcome a continuous review of higher education and its pattern, "Robbins in permanent session", in a phrase which, I believe, he has used in the past. I agree with this. This is partly a matter of looking at the figures of qualified school leavers which we have in the Department, and the figures in terms of national manpower needs, on which, I hope, we shall get some help from the Willis Jackson Committee and the five year plan. It is also partly a matter of major policy and on that it seems highly desirable

that the House of Commons should hold periodic debates so that we can take sometimes, I hope, a collective view on the size and pattern of higher education in the future.
In this connection the right hon. Gentleman talked of the total provision and referred to the fact that in his view the Robbins targets were already out of date. He referred to the fact that the number of those with minimum qualifications already exceeds the figures given in the Robbins Report. I am very conscious of this, just as I am of the encouraging growth in the size and quality of our sixth forms. I cannot, for reasons which I will explain later, give a firm indication of our policy on this subject at the moment, but I can assure him that I view the problem from the standpoint of a committed expansionist as I think he does.
I should like to follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman and go through the different component parts of higher education one by one. I do not want to be too long because I believe we are to have four Front Bench speakers and I do not want any back bench speakers to be crowded out. First, then, the universities. Here I think we must start by paying a tribute to the universities for their magnificent response to the Robbins Report. One sometimes forgets now that when Lord Robbins was preparing his Report there were still voices—remarkably influential voices—expressing doubt whether major expansion was practicable. Other voices doubted whether if it were practicable, it was desirable. One forgets how strong the "more means worse" school was at that time, ranging from A. L. Rowse to Kingsley Amis. The enthusiasm of the universities to go forward with expansion took many people by surprise. Now this enthusiasm is being translated into practice.
The building programme is moving in accordance with the timetable of starts. The returns for last October show an 11 per cent. increase over the entries for the year before. Our target for 1967–68 is 197,000 students and we are on target. One thing I wish to stress in this connection is the enormous capital programme that this target requires, if it is to be met. I think that people do not


always realise the scale of the investment programme involved. By the end of this current financial year something like £150 million worth of building work will be going on in the universities. Out of every £50 we spend in Britain on building production of all kinds—schools, hospitals, roads, housing and industry—about £1 is spent by the universities. One brick in every 50 at the moment is likely to go into a university building. And this is not the end. If we add to that the equipment, furnishings and professional services required, we find that the total capital expenditure rate on work in progress in the universities is around £230 million, which is a really vast sum.
I wish to emphasise one thing and this takes up a point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Even the expenditure of public money on this vast scale will meet the universities growing needs over the next few years only if we get the maximum value for every £ spent; only if the universities exploit every possible economy of large-scale planning and large-scale construction, with standardisation, and only if they make full and extensive use of every piece of available accommodation. We do not want to be put in the position of urging the teacher training colleges, for example, to over-utilise their plant while the universities under-utilise theirs. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two particular points about universities. I shall answer some of them and others will be answered by my hon. Friend.
The Research Councils—yes, I remain responsible for these. On new universities I was pleased that the right hon. Gentleman endorsed the view which we have taken that for the present there should not be any new universities. Under present plans the number of universities will very soon be—the right hon. Gentleman said 41, my figure is 44—anyway, over 40 and it is clear we can get rapid expansion more quickly and more cheaply by expanding existing universities than by building completely new ones. I agree with what he said about older civic universities and the rapid expansion that they had been achieving. I will not go over the arguments; the right hon. Gentleman did so very lucidly.
One argument he did not mentioned was that there are fears among many people who would like more new univer-

sities that if we do not have them we shall get to the American position of vast universities in this country. When we look at the figures we find that these fears are completely groundless. By international standards, British universities are remarkably small. There is one giant—London—with over 24,000 students but apart from that there are only three with over 9,000, Cambridge and Oxford, and Wales, which is spread over the Principality anyway. The largest group in size is between 2,000 and 3,000. If we take the 1973–74 figure of 218,000 places we can fit those figures into the number of universities we already have and still get an average university size of only 5,000 which, of course, is very much smaller than many of the most famous universities in other countries. So the idea that because of our decision we shall have a succession of Berkeleys—campuses with riots about four-letter words—as a consequence of this theory, is totally and completely groundless.
Next the right hon. Gentleman referred to the decision about SISTERS and he approved, I am happy to say, the conclusion which we had come to. He described it with typical ingenuity as "priority without sorority"—a nice phrase. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman approved our decision, that instead of going for the nomenclature of SISTERS we should pick out three leading institutions, the Imperial College, Manchester College of Science and Technology and the University of Strathclyde for selective development.
In this connection the right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of a new technological university institute in the North-East to which I referred in the statement I made in February, and perhaps I can say a word about this. I want to stress that what the Government are examining here is not the promotion to university status of one or other of the major technical colleges in the region, but the creation of a new and, I hope, novel foundation. As a nation we produce scientists second to none, but I am less confident of our capacity to apply the discoveries of the scientists to the needs of the economy and to work them out in terms of productive technology in industry. We are all asking ourselves, can we find a successful way of harnessing the brains and resources of the world


of learning and industry to bring into existence, by a close collaborative effort, the educational extension which in the words of the Robbins Report
could experiment boldly, unfettered by existing affiliations either with universities or with further education".
As a Government we shall be planning during the next few months the next stages in the economic, social and educational advance that we have initiated. We shall have to weigh such a project against many other important enterprises. Since the cost of building and running a really high quality institution is likely to be considerable, we shall naturally be influenced by the size of any contribution that industry has it in mind to make. It is too early to say where in the North-East such an institution might be located. That is a question on which I should want to have the advice of the University Grants Committee.
The next point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with universities was the shortage of applicants for science and technology places. This, as hon. Members know, has been causing a good deal of discussion in the newspapers in the last few months. I think there is some case for concern, but I also think we should get the matter into perspective. First, the fact that the universities admitted 1,500 fewer students in science and technology does not mean that there is a decline in the number of university entrants in these fields. The number of entrants in pure and applied science last October was 15,827. That was an increase of 7·1 per cent. over the previous year and 16·9 per cent. over 1961.
The fact is that the universities are making extra places available more rapidly than the supply of suitable candidates is coming forward. In some ways this is, of course, a tribute to the universities. Then again—the famour 1,500 empty places, so-called—does not mean that the number of science specialists among those who may expect to be considered for university entrance is decreasing. It is true that the percentage of the A level passes which were in science and mathematics did fall from 55 per cent. in 1959 to 51 per cent. in 1963. But—and this is much more important in the context of university places—of all those with two or more A level

passes, the number in science and mathematics seems to have been fairly constant at some 45 per cent. That, of course, is a percentage of a continuously rising total. The picture is, therefore, perhaps not quite so black as it seems. Nevertheless, we clearly must know a great deal more about this matter and the Council for Scientific Policy has invited one of its members, Professor Dainton, Professor of Chemistry at Leeds University, to undertake an inquiry into the supply of candidates for the universities in science and technology.
One of the first tasks will be to analyse the statistical evidence bearing on the choice of course in science and technology by eligible candidates. I am putting the services of my Department at the disposal of Professor Dainton, although inevitably an inquiry of this magnitude must take some considerable time to carry out. Meanwhile, I hope I can reassure hon. Members that many things are being done to improve the situation in the schools. For example, we are now taking serious steps to attract more recruits from both universities and training colleges into science teaching. We are also giving special priority to the needs of science within the school building programme.
My Department has itself sponsored research projects in the teaching of science and mathematics and we are co-operating with that great enterprise, the Nuffield Foundation, which has decided to devote £½ million to this. Also, the Schools Council has begun a major study of 6th form curricula and examinations and recently held its first conference at Nottingham University for the purpose of bringing together industrialists, educationists and others to discuss the 6th form teaching of science. So a great deal is going on to prevent the muliplier effects to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I will say a brief word about colleges of advanced technology. As he said, this debate takes place as these colleges stand on the threshold of university status. From 1st April they come under the aegis of the university grants system. I want to make it clear, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that this change of status should not, in our view, mean any dilution of the technological status of these institutions.
The Robbins Committee, when recommending that they should achieve university status, stressed this and added, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, that it would be appropriate for it to be recognised in their titles and charters. This should not, of course, inhibit them from developing work in pure science as well as social studies, but technology and the application of science to economic needs should remain the core of their work. It is in this spirit that the Government, like the former Government, have welcomed the development of the colleges. I was glad to note that the first of the new draft charters to be submitted is for one of them to be called the Loughborough University of Technology.
One of the most important characteristics of the C.A.T.s has been their development of sandwich courses involving alternate periods in college and industry with the whole course planned as a single scheme of study. There have been suggestions that when the C.A.T.s become universities they will scrap or modify these courses. I, like the right hon. Gentleman and the University Grants Committee, hope and intend that they will do no such thing. We attach the greatest importance to sandwich courses and we would like to see them extended wherever appropriate, including some even in the older universities.
I am glad to say that discussions with the C.A.T.s have shown that they are enthusiastic about expanding and developing these courses. In doing so they will get the utmost encouragement from the Government. We do not want the C.A.T.s to become pale reflections of nineteenth century Oxford and Cambridge or apologising for themselves because they are not precisely like the older universities.

Mr. Peter Walker: Since the right hon. Gentleman referred to the old universities, would he tell us whether he has had talks with the older universities on this issue?

Mr. Crosland: As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the constitutional arrangements we are not directly responsible for the universities. Although we talk informally with all people in the university world, we have no formal link with the universities, except through the University Grants Committee and, as I

said, the members of that Committee take very much the same view as I am expressing. So I emphasise that what we want the C.A.T.s to do is to exploit the unique opportunities which they have as a new type of academic institution. We want to give them the prestige not of older institutions but that which is due to pioneering innovators.
I turn to the question of technical colleges and here I agree largely with what the right hon. Gentleman said. We are planning for a major contribution from regional and other senior colleges within the further education system. A lot of people—and I would plead guilty to this before I came to this Department —did not realise how important this system already is, both in terms of volume and quality. If we include part-time students, there were in 1963–64 nearly 130,000 people taking courses of higher education in these colleges in England and Wales—more, in fact, than in the universities. This was an increase of well over 50 per cent. on the 1958 figures. About 33,000 of the total were pursuing full-time or sandwich courses and nearly 12,000 were taking courses leading to degrees or diplomas in technology.
It is evidence of the high academic standards which are attained that in a number of cases universities have been looking at these colleges with covetous eyes. I would not like to express a definite view on any of the individual cases the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but I would like to make it clear that we certainly want to resist any stampede, to use his phrase, on the part of the colleges in the way he described.
I appreciate that since the publication of the Robbins Report there has been some uncertainty about the future rôle of the colleges as institutions of higher education. Does it lie in imitating the universities or in assimilaton by them? Or should the colleges develop as institutions in their own right, alongside the universities, and not as their competitors or satellites?
I hope that my statement of 24th February about new universities will have gone a long way to resolving these doubts. I hope that it will encourage the colleges to improve their status, not by trying to merge themselves with universities but


by developing to the full their own tradition as professional and vocational institutions of really high quality.
I hope shortly to be initiating discussions about the future pattern of advanced work in the further education system. This is a matter of prime importance and urgency and—while I cannot today anticipate the details of the discussions—I would like to make it quite clear that their purpose will be to ensure that the colleges make their maximum contribution to the higher education needs of the country in their own distinctive way.
As I see it—and as the right hon. Gentleman no doubt agrees—they must build upon their own traditions, of which they have every reason to be proud. They should not set out to duplicate the provision in the uinversities. I do not mean by this that they should seek to be different from the universities for the sake of being different but that they should pursue their own standards of excellence within the spheres for which they are best suited. In this connection, I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's praise for the recent report on this subject by the A.T.T.I., which was an extremely thoughtful and timely contribution to discussion on the subject.
One of the chief functions of the colleges is to provide for students who are attracted by the more vocational tradition of the technical colleges. As the right hon. Gentleman said, in catering for this vitally important group of students—vitally important for the future of the country—a major part will be played by the Council for National Academic Awards. The establishment of this Council will prove to have been a revolutionary step forward with implications going far beyond the further education system.
It will add greatly to the variety of opportunities open to school leavers and other students. I am glad that the Council has already made it clear that it will by sympathetic to proposals for degree courses which break new ground and that it means to encourage the further development of sandwich courses, not only in the technologies but in other spheres, such as business studies.
I hope, too, that with the help of the Council the colleges will be able to de-

velop a range of courses suitable for the growing number of students with a background in arts and social studies for whom they will have to provide. There is great scope for imaginatively devised courses which depart from the traditional patterns without any sacrifice of quality.
Students at the level I have been describing are not the only people for whom the colleges will be responsible. There are other groups as well, but since I mentioned them in my speech, from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted I will not go into such detail as I had intended to. I will merely try to get that passage transferred in HANSARD from the right hon. Gentleman's speech to mine, thus saving work all round. On the general point of the colleges, I want to make it clear that we are dealing with a sector in which there is a very large reservoir of talent, which the country cannot afford to waste.
I turn to numbers. As the right hon Gentleman has said, in my statement of 24th February I said that our object was to provide for at least 50,000 full-time and sandwich advanced students in the technical colleges by 1973–74. I want to emphasise those words "at least" because I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, which is that probably even on existing programmes we shall get beyond that number. I would also emphasise the words "at least" because we cannot plan full-time provision with the same precision as with universities and colleges of education. Facilities in the colleges are interchangeable to a large extent, and this elasticity is of great value in enabling the actual provision to be adjusted to changes in need.
I think that I have said enough to show that, in our view, the opportunities for these colleges are important and exciting. I think that there is a great future for them as higher educational institutions equipped to serve the industrial, professional and business worlds.
I want to say something about teacher supply. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the report of the National Advisory Council. The report was approved by the Council on 2nd March, but it has not yet been formally submitted to me. I understand that the


Council was not unanimous in its views, and that dissenting opinions are also to be conveyed to me. I hope to receive all the relevant documents before Easter but, until I have received them and studied them, I do not think that I should say anything further at this stage.
On the main question of teacher supply, the present position is clearly very disturbing, and I should like to give the basic figures that confront us. There are at present about 290,000 teachers in the primary and secondary schools. This is about 55,000 fewer than we need to reduce class sizes to 40 in primary schools and 30 in secondary schools. At present, about one primary class in seven is over 40 in size, and two secondary school classes in five are over 30 in size. This was the situation that we inherited.
Looking ahead, over the next ten years the school population will rise by about 2½ million—from about 7 million now to about 9½ million in 1976. Of this rise, about 350,000 will be due to the raising of the school leaving age in 1970–71, and most of the rest will reflect the rapid rise in the birthrate since 1956.
To meet this enormous rise in school population, without allowing for any improvement in class sizes, we should need 100,000 more teachers in 1976. If, in addition, we were to eliminate the oversize classes—the conventional oversize in relation to 40 and 30 pupils—we would need a further 70,000 teachers in 1976. That is a total of 460,000, as compared with the 290,000 we have today. If we accept—as, surely, we must—the eventual aim of 30 in primary classes, not 40, we should need a further large number of teachers on top of that. This is a problem of formidable dimensions, to put it mildly. I regard it as by far the greatest problem facing my Department.
How do we meet it? The prime source of teacher supply is the college of education—and here I would say that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will later say something about administration and degrees in connection with the colleges. This source of supply—the colleges of education—has been expanding fast. The student population of the colleges has grown from 28,000 in 1957–58 to over 61,000 in the current

year. Student intake has increased from 13,000 to 24,000 in the same period. Under a decision taken by the previous Government two years ago, the student population of the colleges was due to rise to about 80,000 in 1970–71, implying a student intake of some 27,500. Under that programme, we could expect to have about 433,000 teachers in post in 1976.
This would, however, leave us nearly 30,000 teachers short of the number required to eliminate oversized classes ten years from now—I am talking of 1976. Under that programme we should only have eliminated oversize classes by 1981—

Sir E. Boyle: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the projection he is giving rather assumes that the former Government, having gone up to a minimum of 80,000 by 1970, had taken a decision to stop there. In fact, we never had any doubt that a further target would have to be announced for 1973–74 and that this was implied in our acceptance of the overall Robbins target for that year. The principal reason why a figure had not already been announced was that a final decision was not urgent, and that we knew that the N.A.C. was soon due to report.

Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman but, not being a mind reader, I was not aware of what was in the mind of the previous Government. All that we on this side can go on is what that Government stated and not what, as it were, they dreamed of. On that basis, we should not have got down to classes of 40 and 30 until 1981, and the objective of 30 for primary school classes would have had to wait until 1988. By then I shall be nearly 70. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of children would have spent their school lives in oversized classes.
We decided that this was not good enough, and decided that we should live up to the dreams rather than the statements of the previous Government. We therefore announced on 24th February that the number of teacher training places in England and Wales would be expanded to reach some 110,000 by 1973–74, out of 122,000 places for the whole of Britain. This programme, as such, will produce no improvement until the


'seventies, but by 1976 it should reduce the teacher deficit to 13,000, and by 1978 would eliminate oversized classes altogether. And it would bring forward the date of class sizes of 30 in primary schools to 1983; that is to say, it would advance it by five years, compared with the previous Government's announced proposals.
I still do not regard that as nearly good enough. For one thing, it does nothing in itself to improve the situation in the next few years. I do not want to say anything more on this today, as I hope to make an announcement of further short-term measures in the next few weeks. But it is also not good enough in the long term. On this time-table, we would still have to wait until the 'eighties before approaching our goal of decent-sized classes for all children. I cannot today announce our long-term programme for dealing with this problem. As hon. Members know, the Government are now engaged in the exercise of a five-year plan and long-term review of Government expenditure, and until these are complete I cannot go beyond the long-term policies already announced.
Of course, what we can afford in five, ten or fifteen years' time will depend fundamentally on the rate of our economic growth. One of the reasons why we are now hampered and constricted in this field as in other fields has been the slow rate of growth we have had in the last ten or fifteen years. At least I agree very strongly with the right hon. Gentleman on one point, which is that we cannot look on education as simply being a form of consumer goods like other consumer goods. It has an overwhelming element of investment. It is an investment in higher exports and efficiency and economic growth but, more than that, it is an investment in the quality of our civilisation—and I would emphasise this, it is an investment in social equality.
The more children we have in higher education the more efficient our society will be, the more civilised our society will be and the more democratic our society will be. For all these three reasons, any influence I have will be used in the direction of always getting more money for education.

5.19 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I join the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) in welcoming the opportunity we have of debating this subject today. I do so particularly because there are, perhaps, too few opportunities for mentioning university education and devoting some thought to the remarkable expansion in this field of education which is taking place at present.
When the Secretary of State mentioned the development of Loughborough and its charter, I could not help reflecting that the last time I heard this project discussed was when I went to sup with the Director of Education in Kuwait, whose stepson was a student at Loughborough. It was a very great pleasure and a tribute to the educational facilities available in this country to hear a tribute paid to Loughborough by the Director of Education in Kuwait, who himself has such a good influence in that Welfare State of a new vintage even compared with our own.
One reason why we should discuss university education is that many of us are very fully aware of the ever-increasing need for financial assistance to be given by the nation as a whole, as opposed to the way in which universities were formerly financed under their own endowments. This brings me to my particular point on the four ancient Scottish universities. I do not want to introduce a peculiarly Scottish note into the debate, but I make no apology for referring to the Scottish universities, because there are, in my view rightly, so many English, Commonwealth and foreign students at those universities. I think it is right to say that, whereas when the universities were founded they were all institutions of special endowment, they are now equal partners in the share-out of what is on offer from the central Government.
As the Secretary of State for Scotland is well aware, the Acts which govern the Scottish universities are those of 1858 and 1889, with some minor adjustments and amendments made in 1868, 1922 and 1932. We are all agreed that there is a special case for a certain revision of these Acts. We would also all agree it is perhaps unreasonable to expect any


university today to conduct its affairs on lines laid down between 75 and 100 years ago. Although the present constitution of these universities was adequate and acceptable in the days when the professorial staff had full representation on the governing bodies, the expansion of the universities, to which my right hon. Friend paid tribute and in which the Scottish universities have taken a considerable share of the increase, has meant that the staff representation is inadequate for present-day need.
The Robbins Report recommended that the Acts should be repealed and a new Act substituted. The Secretary of State for Scotland has perhaps not yet decided that this is necessary. Such recommendations as have been submitted to him may not necessarily contain the full opinion of those whom it would be appropriate to consult at this time. I raise the matter today because it is right that the House should understand that these four Scottish universities, with all their ancient history, are in a rather different position from any other university which is under consideration. They are, of course, making a very great contribution to the present pattern of university expansion.
Although the Robbins recommendation for repeal has had support in certain quarters, I hope that great consideration will be biven by both Secretaries of State to the point of view to which I subscribe, namely, that the widest opinion should be taken before any amendments to the existing Acts are made and that it should not necessarily be accepted that the right recommendations are those made by the rather more limited body of people entitled to make such representations at present. I do not wish to pursue the matter further than that at this stage.
Then there is a point on syllabus. This probably extends beyond the question which arises in the Scottish universities, because there is a general feeling that syllabuses in most universities could be given what has been recently termed "a new look". This is perhaps particularly true of the Scottish universities. Many people take the view that the ordinary degree course in Scottish universities is an insufficiently exacting course to provide the discipline now accepted as the discipline of learning required from a university course. I would hope that

there could be some recognition of the fact that a good general education demands a very serious study of several related subjects, rather than it being accepted that a nodding acquaintance with a variety of subjects is sufficient.
My next point concerns the numbers qualifying in science subjects. The Secretary of State said that this position was not quite so alarming as it at first seemed. If he will look at the subject from another angle, he will find cause for great alarm. I have referred to this matter before and I hope that the House will indulge me by allowing me to refer to it again. I shall continue to refer to it until the position improves. Table 31 of Appendix Two (B) of the Robbins Report gives the breakdown between the number of men and women qualified in science subjects. This is at the entry stage of A-levels.
My contention is that we do not encourage girls at the secondary school stage—I believe that it should start in the primary school—to have a sufficient interest in science subjects. I am not at the moment including mathematics, although certain tables in the Robbins Report include mathematics in the science subjects. There is a dramatic difference between the number of girls who qualify in science subjects and the number of boys who do so. Table 31 shows that very nearly twice as many men as women are qualified in science subjects at A-level.
This is not necessarily because women are particularly stupid in science subjects. I have no doubt that some of us are. I do not pretend to qualify in this subject. Indeed, I do not even pretend to be able to add two and two together. But there is a general lack of encouragement here, and this lack of encouragement is very pronounced at the school stage. If there is no encouragement at the school stage, a pupil is hardly likely to be able to take up these subjects. An effort should be made at least to change the balance by increasing the number of girls interested in these subjects. I hope that it will be proved possible, not only for this to be done in secondary schools, but also for us to promote a very early interest in science which in my admittedly limited experience is not done at present.
I noted that the right hon. Gentleman said that the Professor of Chemistry at Leeds University was going to look into


the question of the fall in A-level passes in science. I make this point today in the hope that any such review will include special attention to the encouragement of girls to graduate through the schools to a level where they can successfully take an A level pass in science subjects. I am glad to have had the opportunity of raising these three points which have been represented to me.

5.31 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I should like to begin by referring to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the way in which the universities have responded to the expansion which they were asked to achieve, because although it is true that the universities have responded to this target, and indeed have passed the original target laid down, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the strain which it is at present placing upon them and which in some places is very nearly intolerable.
I refer particularly to the special strains that arise from the policy set down when it was announced that there would be no further new universities for the next ten years. I am sure that most of us on this side of the House, and many hon. Members opposite as well, strongly applauded this decision. Nevertheless, we must recognise that some of the universities which will be expected to expand most are in the great cities. Indeed, the Robbins Report itself very much applauded the argument for universities in great cities. This means that the Secretary of State's Department must look closely at the schemes for urban renewal and replanning, because many of the universities in great urban areas are now running hard up against lack of land for their expansion.
The Robbins Report suggested that it was important that as far as possible joint courses of a general type should be developed and that we should move away from extreme specialisation at an early stage. Joint courses make sense in the university timetable if the various buildings concerned for the faculties are sufficiently close together to enable students to spend more time being taught than in travelling from one building to another. There is a very great danger in Birmingham and London and other

major cities that certain types of general courses will become completely impossible because of the distance between buildings. I very much hope that in drawing up schemes for the Land Commission and in the work of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government the special needs of higher education, especially outside the cathedral cities will be very much borne in mind.
I hope that my right hon. Friend is aware of it, and that the Minister of State will be able to make some reference in reply to the fact that universities find it impossible to negotiate sufficiently quickly or to offer sufficient money to catch up with developments in centres of cities and around many areas where university expansion is now taking place. Sir Charles Morris, writing in the University Quarterly of December 1963 said:
The unhappy history of past years and months have caused most universities to be seriously behindhand with their building programmes even for the old plans.
He was, of course, writing at a time when a Conservative Government were in office. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that, despite increases now made in financial provision to the universities, it is extremely difficult to catch up with the backlog of cuts in 1962 and 1963.
This is particularly relevant in view of the pressure of demand to which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) and the Secretary of State have referred. At present I think that I am right in saying that about 4·6 per cent. of the age group in Britain go to university, but, according to the statistics of the Secretary of State's Department, the number of boys and girls who will qualify with passes of two A-levels or more for university entrance by 1973 will be approximately 13 per cent. of the age group. Although the right hon. Member for Handsworth referred to the need to prevent university degrees reaching a social status which was overwhelming, experience of other countries, especially the United States and the Soviet Union, strongly suggests that it would be difficult to resist this pressure.
The pressure of demand for university places will lead immediately to pressure of demand for university teachers. It is estimated that one-third of the higher honour graduates, those with Firsts and good Second-class degrees will be


required simply to meet the need for university teachers in the 1970s. This means that approximately one in three of the better degrees will be absorbed in this one profession. This suggests that the number of people holding high honours degrees able to move to other professions, particularly school teaching, will be under great pressure. But, as the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) pointed out, already one of the major reasons why not enough of the places in science and technology in the universities and the C.A.T.s are taken up is due to the dearth of science teachers in schools, and the appalling dearth of them in girls' schools in particular. It is well-known to many hon. Members that science teachers at many even quite good girls' schools can be recruited only by being offered special posts of responsibility within a year or two of leaving training college. This creates resentment among teachers of other subjects who may have to wait years for the same sort of status and salary.
This brings me to the problem of teacher-training colleges and the expansion, to which my right hon. Friend's Department and the Government have rightly given priority. One special problem which I know is very much in my right hon. Friend's mind is the problem of wastage. However much we increase the number of people moving into teacher-training colleges, granted that we increase at the same time the number of university places, we cannot move very far from the problem of wastage of teachers, because, whatever statistics one likes to take, it is almost certain that the majority, though perhaps not so overwhelmingly as at present, of students in training colleges in the next ten years are likely to be women, and on the projected marriage rates many of them will leave the profession within five years, and most of those within three years, of entering it.
The Department could take some original steps in this direction. It is clear that some authorities make far less use than others of part-time teachers. I hope that the Department will consider at least the possibility of making sure that qualified part-time teachers are taken up earlier in the quota than they are at present. Use varies widely, with some authorities making good use and laying on refresher courses and so on, and others

apparently incapable of even using fully qualified teachers on part-time work in their schools.
We could do far more, I suggest, with day training colleges for teachers and particularly for women with two A-levels who want to go back to teaching but cannot consider residential courses. It seems to me that many head teachers and teachers with posts of special responsibility would be prepared to consider giving lectures to day courses if they could be relieved of part of the burden of administrative work. This suggests that there is some room for saving this time by the employment of people with administrative training in drawing up timetables, working out how the courses dovetail with one another, and that type of work.
There is another aspect of this matter which I regard as important and which, I was pleased to see from a recent Answer by the Minister of State, is being further considered by the Department. I refer to nursery classes and the suggestion by my hon. Friend that consideration would be given to the starting of nursery classes where this would mean a net increase in the number of teachers in the school system. It is often thought abhorrent in the House and in the country to give any special form of priority to a particular group in the community, but I believe, and I think that many hon. Members share this view, that the crisis is now so severe that we ought to consider giving some form of priority to people willing to return to the schools if nursery classes exist for their children. This would, in effect, mean a better education for more children than if no such priority were given.
The right hon. Member for Hands-worth referred to what he called hybrid institutions. The extension of the idea of the hybrid institution is closely relevant to our efforts to attract more people into teaching. I should like to see us break down over the coming years the distinctions between university, teacher training college, C.A.T. and further education far more than we have yet done in this country. I should like it to be a commonplace for someone who passes through further education and finds in himself a hunger and thirst for education, to move on, even at a later stage, to university.


I should like to see able teacher trainees move on, possibly for their last year, to university. These things will be possible only if universities approach their subjects rather more flexibly than they do today. Moreover, we should use our university accommodation not just for conferences and that kind of thing in the vacations but much more for refresher and further education courses for teachers and other people in education during the vacation times.
One thinks of hybrid institutions in another sense, too. Just as it is important to break down distinctions within and between the institutions of higher education, it is important also to break down what used to be described as the conflict between town and gown. There are two ways in which we can make advances in this respect. One is exemplified to a great extent by the new University of Essex which has gone a long way to plan itself in relationship to the town around it, to offer facilities which can be made available to the townspeople in the form of parkland, cultural facilities and so on. This sort of thing needs to be taken further. A university must stop seeming like something which belongs just to itself. It must become something very much open to us all, to the townspeople and the community round about. This can be done particularly in the new universities by recognising that their theatres and other cultural facilities are open to the town as well. Here again, I should like to see a close relationship between the Department and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in the preparation of plans for these universities as they expand.
There is a particular form of hybrid institution of which we have far too little in the United Kingdom today. I refer to the possibility of work on joint development and research studies between industry and the technical universities, the sort of thing which is done today in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology and other places in the United States. Such arrangements are all too rare in this country.
If anything, it can be said that there is a deep suspicion of the academic who

may, for instance, work as a part-time industrial consultation as well. In our present economic situation, this is a rather retrograde attitude, and I should like the Department to encourage joint academic and industrial appointments of the sort pioneered recently between Imperial Chemical Industries and Churchill College. Appointments of this kind should become far more commonplace, with people moving from industry to take short courses in the universities and then going back to their industrial work and teachers going from the universities and working for some time in the research laboratories of industry, so that there is a constant interchange.
What about the cost of all this? It is not a popular view, but I am inclined to think that we have a very expensive approach to higher education in Britain. We have a very high staff-student ratio, about one in eight. In France it is about one in 30. No one would recommend that we adopt the French system, which is in many ways chaotic, with a high rate of wastage, but we ought to consider whether the techniques now being considered and tried in the schools, often referred to under the heading of team teaching, are in some ways appropriate at university level as well. In other words, we should set for ourselves a more fluid teaching pattern, perhaps using very large lectures or even fairly large seminars, breaking away to some extent from the high staff-student ratio to which we have hitherto held.
I felt that the Robbins Report pitched its demands for student hostels to a level which is certainly desirable but which sets the priorities wrong in a situation of financial stringency. I am certain that many boys and girls would much rather be students living in a garret, to put it like that, than not be students because being students would mean living in a smart new university hostel which is not likely to be provided very soon.
My right hon. Friend spoke of education as being, for him, a good thing in itself, something going beyond its mere ecenomic value to us as a nation. I agree with him, and I concluded in this way. There is a real danger in this country of replacing our old social class system which is now gradually breaking down by a new system of class prejudice depending on academic standards. All of us are only too aware of this. The way


to overcome it is to get rid of the rungs in the ladder of education itself, or rather, to make it not so much a ladder as a ramp—an area, as it were, in which further education, technological education, higher school education and university education blend into one another. This must be the main purpose of those of us on this side at least when we make our plans for higher education. Education is not something which should end. It should last throughout a lifetime. It is something which at this moment gives us, above all, an opportunity to remove distinctions instead of creating them.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) have all drawn attention yet again to the everlasting problem of teacher supply. I agree with what the hon. Lady said about wastage and with some of the suggestions she made for overcoming it. Only a day or so ago, I received a letter from a teacher who had married and who was beginning to think that she wanted to come back into the profession. She was somewhat nervous of so doing because she thought that her teaching methods might be out of date, and she wondered what refresher courses might be available. Local authorities and the Department must do their utmost to ensure that there are always courses available for teachers who wish to come back and who wish to polish up their teaching methods to bring themselves up to date.
The speeches so far have dwelt mainly on the universities, but I wish to strike out in a slightly different direction. Paragraph 513 of the Robbins Report refers to the education of adults:
We have hitherto concentrated on the education of young people. But higher education is not a once-for-all process. As the pace of discovery quickens it will become increasingly important for practitioners in many fields to take courses at intervals to bring them up to date in their subjects.
I believe that the process of reeducation has not in the past received anything like enough attention, nor have those working at the senior levels of the professions or industries been encouraged—nor, for that matter, have they had the time—to attend courses in modern

techniques and methods which would both refresh their own outlook and inspire them to make better use of the latest technological advances.
In the past this may have mattered little. Each successive generation was seized of the latest knowledge, so that there was a gradual evolution of thought and practice. But now the pace of change has become so great that it is of paramount importance for all, but particularly the leaders, to have some idea of the advances being made in their own parts of industry.
We are living now on the brink, even if we are not yet part, of an age of automation and each day that passes new discoveries are made, often of more far-reaching consequence than discoveries made in whole centuries of history. To what extent is this realised? Nothing like to the extent that it should be and there is undoubtedly an unwillingness to make use of, and for that matter a suspicion of, things that are new, and this instead results in a block to progress.
I want to quote a passage from one of the Reith lectures delivered by Sir Leon Bagrit on the age of automation. Sir Leon said:
One might imagine that out of self interest, every manufacturer and every business man would rush to buy a computer or a computer control system as soon as it became available to him. Of course some do, but many do not. The strongest reason for this, I think is that the present generation of business leaders was educated in a period when automation was barely heard of, even in science-fiction, and automation compels them to re-think the whole structure of their industry and its processes.
So, because the new power has not been realised, and because the coming of the computer age, in which the extension of man's ability to tackle and solve problems which previously took years to master has not been appreciated, much of the country's thinking is still tied down to that formed by the teachers of the 1930s, when the economic objectives and considerations were very different from those of today. This, I submit, is the problem we now face.
It is typical in all activities—engineering, architecture, indeed, in the whole multitude of professions and skills. Young men entering their professions for the first time, bursting to practise their newly gained knowledge and to try out the


latest techniques, are frustrated by the fear, doubtless genuine in its original conception, of those who hold the senior posts of responsibility. For these people received their training in a period of recession and hardship, when money was extremely scarce and there was little thought of expansion or growth but rather only of economic survival.
This is the thinking that must be changed, but above all it must be changed in management—up till recently perhaps the most neglected of all subjects in Britain. Now at last it has at least been recognised that it is not enough to leave a manager to learn by experience, gained too often within the narrow limitations of one firm. It is realised that effective management training is essential at all levels and, so amongst other things, the recommendation by the Robbins Committee that two business schools should be set up was generally welcomed.
Of course, there has been already considerable progress in the last 15 years—so much so that, in 1963, there were 52 adult education centres and professional and specialist types of organisations offering between them no less than 237 courses of management training and education. Of course, that is progress and it sounds impressive but it has to be kept in perspective. There is an inadequacy of statistical data but it is thought that there are about 450,000 managers in industry today. It is estimated that less than 1 pet cent. have received any external management training.
As for the present, the only reliable statistics available relate to the number of students attending courses for the diploma in management studies. In 1963–64, the diploma was able to attract a total of 3,000, and an entry of only 564 for the first year, for the three-year course. But taking the figure of 450,000, and if it is assumed that each manager has a working life of 40 years, it means that 11,000 students a year should be given some form of initial management training.
This is looking at the problem as it faces us with regard to the education of future managers. It must be equally important to educate now the senior ranks of management so that they can appreciate new ideas and new thinking. It has been suggested that there are three stages

of education for management. The first is, I think, generally accepted. It is the postgraduate period, when a young man needs a general course to familiarise himself with general technique and the basic skills of industry and commerce.
The second stage is up to 10 years later to fit him for a specialised post in general management. The third stage comes at the time of selection for top management. This is the moment when the individual should be given the opportunity for a period of withdrawal in which to view objectively the world in which he climbed up to his position of power and, above all, to take note of—more, to take a course covering—intellectual and practical subjects so that he can appreciate fully the application and scope of the most up-to-date thinking.
This third period is, I believe, the most important, partly because it is the one least likely to be noted by those who should take notice and partly because the initiative of those at the top affects so much those on the lower rungs of the ladder. Bearing in mind the figure I mentioned earlier, there must be about 440,000 managers of different kinds who have received no specialised management training at all.
This is some idea of the problem. Taken in isolation, it is bad enough, but taken in the knowledge of the competition we face from other countries it is far worse. So, on the one hand, there is need to increase facilities for training of the managers of the future. On the other hand, there is even more urgent need to re-educate and modernise present senior management so that junior and senior will in future be speaking the same language, based on the same principles, pertaining to 1965 and not to 1935.
Management contains many professionally qualified people. Many boards of directors contain a qualified accountant or an engineer, while the construction industry leans heavily on the architect. It is vital that the syllabus for all professional examinations connected with these and other professions be constantly revised. This is a task that I believe to be neglected at present. I am informed, for instance, that the syllabus for the accountancy examination contains no reference to the application of computers.
But not only is it important that the syllabuses for such examinations be


brought up to date but that facilities are positively provided to see that those who have passed a professional examination in years, sometimes decades, past are kept in touch with the latest developments by means of refresher courses throughout their working lives. The problem, of course, is where all these courses can be organised and who is to run them.
I have already mentioned some of the courses which are available but I think far better use can be made at certain times of the year of our universities and I welcome in particular the Secretary of State's remarks with regard to sandwich courses.
In the United States the older universities grew up with a tradition of service to the particular needs and requirements of contemporary society. Originally, the primary concern of America was agriculture and so it was upon agriculture that most university effort was expended. Then the need came for training in the mechanical arts, and so the emphasis in the universities changed. Later again, it was the importance of business problems which required study, and so the universities decided to study and teach business. Thus grew up the great business schools so closely connected with the universities.
Perhaps in this country there has not been the same tradition, at least, not to such an extent, among our universities of serving the immediate needs of society. When there is now a greater requirement than ever before for re-education, why should they not now do so, not by any major change in the present courses, but purely by a better use of facilities?
In many ways the universities are our greatest under-used asset. It is only for a small proportion of the year that the halls of residence are inhabited and it is by no means for a full year day in day out that the laboratories and lecture halls are occupied and busy. Why should they not be put to better use in pusuit of the modernisation of the outlook of those educated in years gone by? The provision of facilities, therefore, does not provide an insuperable problem.
The recruitment of teachers and instructors is always more difficult, of course. Broadly, university staffs are already working at full stretch and cannot do much more. So it must be up to the professions themselves and to

industry to make arrangements for the temporary release of leading experts and front runners in their particular fields who can refresh the outlook of others. This is a sphere of need to which the Government should be giving the most detailed consideration.
Most of my remarks have been based on the need to educate and re-educate for management. This has been entirely on purpose, for I believe that if management is effective and efficient, progress in other directions will follow as a natural corollary. Good management will demand the best advice and the most exquisite performance from highly-trained experts in every conceivable subject. But if this is to be provided now, when the speed of change has so increased, a much wider view of education must be taken.
At the beginning of my speech I drew attention to the remark in the Robbins Report that it will become increasingly important for practitioners to take courses at intervals to bring them up to date in their subjects. In the past, we have concentrated our efforts on the education of the child. Now we must concentrate on an entirely new approach to education—education from childhood to retirement. This concept must not remain a daydream, because it is of absolute necessity in the highly-competitive society in which we live today.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I do not propose to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) except to say that I agree that we must do something about management. I want specifically to refer to the administration and management of the universities themselves and, more particularly, the Scottish universities. It may be thought before I have finished that I am asking that some of the professors with chairs in industrial psychology or industrial relations should first look at their own administration to see whether better relationships could not be established between the principals and the other grades of university lecturers.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is here, because that shows the interest in universities and education which he normally displays. He will probably be


aware of the importance of the decisions which now face him as the Minister to whom Scottish university affairs are referred. I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science say that there was no formal link between his Department and the universities in England and Wales. In Scotland there is such a narrow formal link, and it is that link which we have been trying to exploit with a view to assisting education as a whole.
My interest in this matter was first aroused almost 10 years ago in pursuit of trying to ensure that the bulge then going through the schools and the increasing number of young people staying on after 15 and the need for more places in the universities—the crisis in education—would be met by expanding the accommodation in the universities. It was most disappointing to some of us to find that when we tried to get information there was an air of complacency and almost of resentment in the universities against such a procedure. It led to some public concern, and when the Robbins Committee finally published its Report, there seemed to some of us to be evidence that Scottish university authorities and education authorities generally had fallen down on their job of keeping even the then Government properly advised about the situation.
The fault for the lack of provision of university places lies equally at the door of the universities as of the political administrators of those days. It is because I am afraid that the impact of the Robbins Report, which is a damning indictment of the delays and procrastinations, is losing some of its pace and momentum that I refer to a matter which the hon. Lady for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) mentioned earlier. I believe that our views on this matter agree. I should like to take the matter a little further.
The Robbins Committee referred to the lay elements of university government circles and referred to the extreme view that lay members ought not to be on these governing bodies. The Report went on to refer to the fact that 85 per cent. of university money is public money, which gives greater reason for lay representation on university authori-

ties. Speaking of what it called this extreme view—that there should be no lay representation—the Report said:
We are not in sympathy with this view. More than 85 per cent. of university finance comes from public sources and in our judgment it is in general neither practicable nor justifiable that the spending of university funds should be wholly in the hands of the users.
But it went on, correctly, to point out that that lay opinion should not interfere in the detailed day-to-day administration of the universities. I concur with that view.
But non-professorial staff complained to the Robbins Committee that they were not doing an adequate share of the administrative work of the faculties and departments. The Robbins Report said that there was some justification for these complaints. In my view, all members of the academic staff should be invited to take part in the formulation of policies at departmental level right up to the senate and board of studies level. Insufficient attention is given in very many cases to the qualities of good teaching, and ability in research or, more often, the aptitude for writing publications are the criteria used in assessing the qualifications for promotion. The result is that many excellent teachers cut their commitments and publish as much as they can while others who are dedicated to teaching and their students continue with their work feeling that their chances of promotion may be jeopardised. This leads to a sense of frustration in the staff rooms. They are all good, fully-qualified professional people, but little value is placed on their opinions, ideas and initiative and their advice is seldom, if ever, sought.
Recently, Lord Cameron made a speech as the Chairman of the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland. He indicated at the trust's annual dinner that it might be willing to support inquiries in the universities into their relations with one another and into their future purposes and expectations. He posed a simple question which he did not propose to answer. What is a university? It is a simple but very embarrassing question which seems to demand an answer. Some university authorities have not yet provided an answer. He went on to pose other questions: what particular aims and purposes should the the universities select and pursue and


how best should they pursue them, and what measure of academic freedom could they require and justify? Later he referred to the primary purpose of universities in research and teaching, but he asked,
teaching and research to what end?".
These are apposite and important questions.
I do not propose to attack the university authorities in Scotland who are and have been doing a magnificent job with inadequate means and resources. But the question must be asked: is it not high time to break away from the inadequate, obsolete 1889 Act from which they derive their constitution? Subsequent amending Acts have been passed which have only made the confusion worse confounded. As the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East said, these Acts have been in existence for about a hundred years. They provided for small communities which were then isolated with strong internal ties.
Today the population of universities varies from 2,000 to 9,000. In those days the teaching staff consisted entirely of professors. But now the ratio of professors to lecturers in some cases is 1 to 5 and in others only 1 to 10. The finances of the universities then were independent of the State. Today, they are dependent on the State for finance to the extent of 85 per cent. University independence and internal self-government mean something different today from what they meant a hundred years ago.
The Robbins Report, in paragraph 690, says:
We cannot believe that such a law now serves a useful purpose and, although we are assured that in practice the habit of informal conference and a disposition to give-and-take render it less irksome than it might easily be, we think that it must impose a limitation on initiative and experiment.…It is right, too, that the state should be provided…with relevant statistical information. But there are other and better ways of achieving these ends.
I agree. The paragraph goes on:
we have no hesitation, therefore, in recommending that the Act be repealed…".
That is the view of the Association of University Teachers and of most people in universities in Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we are in difficulty. I have only just

come into the Chair, but the repeal of legislation would, in itself, require legislation which we cannot discuss. I have no discretion in that matter. It is not like a debate on the Adjournment.

Mr. Hannan: I will try to pay attention to the point you have made, Mr. Speaker. It is undemocratic that lecturers have no rights and no status.
It is on these conflicting attitudes that the Secretary of State has to make his decision. I hope that he will look at the need for progress and that he will come to the decision which we expect of him. The Association of University Teachers in Scotland has 1,800 members. They cover all grades of staff, and professors as well as lecturers. I remind my right hon. Friend that we had to introduce a small amending Bill to ensure that the previous occupant of his office was not visited by the full rigours of the law because of the non-observance of certain duties which he should have carried out. A more radical examination must be undertaken of the present constitution because the overall effect of the proposed changes would not give the staff their proper democratic rights in the examination of these other problems.
I will not pursue that matter. I should like to return to the two points which my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) made, particularly about girls in the schools and the fact that we are not making sufficient use of the facilities to encourage girls to participate in the study of mathematics and science. My hon. Friend said that the provision of teachers was so crucial that she thought that women who had retired should be brought back to the profession. This raises the question whether the time has been reached when we should bring back teachers who have retired and pay their pensions. I know that this would be a breach in public service conditions and in former practice. But the matter has become so crucial that this possibility will have to be considered.
If a teacher retires he can receive his pension and be employed in another job. He can, if he wishes, become the janitor in the school at which he taught. He can be a doorkeeper, a liftman or a messenger, but he certainly cannot teach without losing his pension. Hon. Members have, spoken of the wastage of women teachers


leaving the profession to marry. They are away from the schools for a certain number of years but when their families have grown up their situation is changed. I know that great efforts are being made by both my right hon. Friends to recruit more women teachers and all of us hope that those efforts will be successful.
May I, in conclusion, put two points to my right hon. Friend. With regard to the representations he has received from the Association of University Teachers about proposals for amending the constitution, will he at least give an assurance that he will have as much regard for the proposals made by the university teachers' organisation as he has given to the proposals of the university principals? Secondly, would he try to give some assurance that in considering this matter he will try to provide a statutory right whereby annual reports will be provided by a university giving in greater detail information on finance and the number of students to the same extent as such information is available in some universities in England and Wales?

6.21 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): It may be for the convenience of the House if I reply at once to the points raised on Scottish universities. Scotland has done relatively well in the post-Robbins developments in respect of universities.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Ross: The approval given for the new university in Stirling and for the elevation of the Heriot-Watt College in Edinburgh and Queen's College in Dundee to university status still stands. Strathclyde also is new in the university field and has been nominated as one of the technological institutions which is to have special attention. In the meantime, the older universities of Scotland are doing their bit in relation to the new needs and are expanding considerably: so much so that they are changing in nature from the days when they were established and certainly from the days when the statutory link that was formed—and which is unique in respect of these

universities—was made between them and the Government and Parliament. This was a matter referred to in the Robbins Report. The constitution of St. Andrew's, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh is set out in various Acts of different ages and stages and in ordinances made under these Acts, ordinances which come before the House—sometimes to the surprise of hon. Members. The principal Act is that of 1889, to which the hon. Lady referred. This sets out the constitution, powers and functions of the main organs of university government and lays down the procedure which should be followed in the wide range of important matters which the universities are required to deal with by means of ordinance.
The universities themselves in the past have frequently criticised the Acts on the grounds that they require them to go through unnecessary and cumbersome administrative procedure. The Robbins Committee took the view that it was anomalous for these universities to be so restricted in this day and age and recommended that the 1889 Act should be repealed and that each university should settle its own constitution as new universities have been doing regularly in the past few years. But the proposals for reform submitted by the university courts do not seek the repeal of the Universities (Scotland) Acts but call for their amendment so that the procedures followed under them may be simplified. It is their view—with some justification—that when the universities are faced with the great external challenges involved in expansion it is not the time to brood over internal problems of constitution making.
The views of the Association of University Teachers were fairly put forward by the hon. Lady and by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) who argued strongly in favour of repeal, maintaining that constitutions deriving largely from 19th century Acts are ambiguous and unsuitable for dealing with 20th century conditions; and it was suggested that more fundamental reform would assure academic staff a greater say in senates and courts. We can all appreciate the balance of the argument. I would repeat that consideration is being given to the various proposals made, and there will he
further consultation with interested


parties as appropriate. We shall not dismiss out of hand proposals which have been put forward by anyone. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill an assurance that we will give due and equal consideration to proposals which come forward from the Association of University Teachers and to representations from principals.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great satisfaction that this will give to many university teachers in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: It is not yet possible to say when there will be legislation on this matter. I am sorry to have to mention legislation, because I know of the limitation in this debate, but I must do so for the simple reason that if we are to establish a new university it means the hiving off from St. Andrews of Queen's College, Dundee, and building from there a new university. This severance legislation will form part of the major legislative changes to the universities Acts. The need to achieve the separation of Dundee from St. Andrews will come within the next year or two, which lends particular urgency to our consideration of the proposals which have been put forward from each side.

Sir E. Boyle: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I tell him that we on this side of the House shall, of course, regard this as entirely non-controversial. If there is any difficulty about timing I recognise that this may have to be to some extent retrospective, and we accept that.

Mr. Ross: Our timing is dictated by what we hope to do in the establishment of the university itself, but that does not mean to say that nothing is being done at the moment. Much is being done by the Academic Advisory Committee. But it means that we are not free agents in relation to time and we do not want to delay. We hope that we may have the legislation in the next Session, or failing that, early in the following Session. I am glad to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that it will be regarded as non-controversial. I wish that I could have that assurance from my hon. Friends, but I cannot think of anything that is more controversial in Scotland than the extension of universities.
The syllabus is all-important, not only in respect of its intrinsic merit, but the effect that it has on the problem about which the hon. Lady spoke, namely, the balance between boys and girls in relation to whether or not they are coming forward to take their places in due proportion to study science subjects at universities.
In Scotland we are fortunate in not having this over-specialisation. We have longer courses at our universities, and thus there is not the same rigidity in respect of the prospect of a child—if we can call a person of that age a child—making up his mind too early about the course to take. The result is that within this flexibility there is a greater possibility of being able to influence people with regard to the faculty to which they should go. This is one reason why it is not quite such a serious problem with us, and we are doing quite a lot about it.
As the hon. Lady knows, we are the first country on this side of the Atlantic to have a recombing of the science syllabus in secondary schools, and I think that we have the right balance in respect of the importance of these subjects.
With these few remarks from me on the Scottish aspect of university matters, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill, and the hon. Lady will appreciate that we are fully aware of the differing points of view. We are actively considering them, and I shall certainly give due weight to the points which have been raised today.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will understand if I do not follow him into Scottish matters even if, as a Celt, I have some prescription to do that, but in a moment or two I should like to refer to some of the points that he made about finance and university freedom.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) said something which rather disturbed me. As shown by the statistics, I took him to say that there would be an increase in the number of first generation students who would be following higher education in the years to come. I took him to argue from that, at least to some degree—I do not want to overstate the


case—that non-degree studies would be suitable for people of this kind.
I hope that I am not doing the right hon. Gentleman an injustice. This is something about which I feel very strongly. I know that there are problems of educational assimilation, if that is the right word, for people from traditionally working-class homes, but I also know, from my own experience, and from what I have heard in my constituency, that there are a large number of students, mainly boys it is true, who have gone to university and have done extremely well by taking degree courses. My constituency is in "Hoggart" country. Professor Hoggart was born in South Leeds and his book, "The Uses of Literacy", is about an area from which has come a large number of first generation students who have gone to university and whom, since I have been a Member of this House, I have met in high places in different parts of the country. I hope that it will not generally be thought that there is a sort of step-up; that children from homes of this sort will have to do further education courses first to get the atmosphere before they can go any further.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) raised a subject in which I am very interested by trade, as it were, the subject of management, in which, on the teaching side, I did a little before I came into the House. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more has to be done in this respect, but I should like to raise a danger signal here.
There is a danger that management will become some sort of sacred cow when it comes to providing courses. It was put to me forcibly at one of our universities the other day that one has only to suggest a course such as "management and mathematics", or "management and cybernetics", or "management and social science", "management and chips", as someone added, it does not matter, and a course can be arranged on it. I took the point that much has to be done, but the educational world is a creature of moods, and the mood at the moment is management, but it can be overdone.
It seems to me that there is a danger that the whole field of higher education and the provision of finance for it can

also become a sacred cow. We are all agreed that higher education is very important. We have been told by Robbins, and goodness knows how many others, that money must be provided for higher education—and it is right that this should be done—but I wish that primary education could get as good a Press as higher education, and get more money, because, again in my constituency, when I see vast buildings going up in one part of the city for the university—and of course this is right—I wish that a little of it could creep down to some of our primary schools.
It is possible to become so concerned with expansion that we come to ignore many of the problems in higher education. One of these, and this has been borne in on me during my short period of service in the House, is the control of the finance of higher education. Are we getting value for money now that the C.A.T.s are coming into the sphere of university education?
If my brief bit of research is right, in the financial year 1965–66 we shall be spending£193 million on education controlled by the U.G.C. This is one-tenth of the money spent on defence. We are concerned about defence spending, but we do not seem to be nearly so concerned about spending money on higher education. I wonder, also, whether the U.G.C. is equipped to carry out all the functions that it has to perform these days with this growing budget.
Other hon. Members this afternoon have raised questions concerning the use of buildings, and making full use of staff. In my view one of the most important things that we have to do in the years to come, when far more money will be spent on higher education, is to look at the financial procedures and not be bamboozled to some degree by the argument about university freedom, important though this is. I would be the last to deny that concept, but to some degree it is hiding many of the financial problems which we in this Committee ought not to let out of our grasp.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I take it that in advancing this argument about the examination of costs my hon. Friend is not suggesting that we ought to have some sort of inspectorate looking into the universities. I have listened to


arguments about this business of examining costs. I take it that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that we ought to introduce the thin end of the wedge by sending inspectors into the universities.

Mr. Rees: As one who has suffered, if that is the right word, under inspectors in other parts of education, far be it from me to inflict them on anybody. What I had in mind was that the accounts of the universities should at least come under the control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I am thinking in terms of Parliamentary control.
The failure rate at universities is, to some degree, inevitable, but the figures in Chapter 3 and Appendix 29 of the Robbins Report are incredible. For example, in 1961 about 14 per cent. of the young men and women who went to university, having obtained the necessary qualifications, failed to graduate. In an article in the Sunday Times at the time of the publication of the Robbins Report Professor Ford said:
Out of 27,000 boys and girls who entered universities in 1961 nearly 4,000 will have failed. This 'few'"—
as he calls them—
adds up to the total population of a fair sized university such as Bristol or Sheffield.
Is enough attention given to the reasons for this? I understand that the failure rate is far lower at Oxford and Cambridge. Is this because the methods of selection at Oxford and Cambridge are far more accurate than for other universities, or is it that being more mature institutions, there is no meritocracy? Is it a fact that at other institutions it is believed that a high failure rate is necessary in order to encourage the others? Is it a fact that at least one of the two of the older universities runs a fourth-class honours degree, which is not done at other universities?
Looking at the figures, we see that by far the greatest reason for failure is academic. It is interesting to note that the science failure rate is higher than that for the arts. Is it the fault of the universities that this is happening? Why is it different at some universities than at others? Is it different for some social and academic groups than for others? What figures are available on this question?
One thing which must be investigated more fully is the fact that at least at one

of our larger universities students who have been at boarding schools have a much higher failure rate than those who went to day school. This is of some concern to me because, unlike some of my hon. Friends, I am not so concerned about the position of the public schools. This may be because I have no conscience in this respect. The aspect of the failure problem ought to be examined.
The question of sixth forms is one of which I have more direct experience. In my view many of the sixth forms in maintained grammar schools do not do a proper job in training students for the universities. This is not because of some weakness on the part of the people who run them, but because the facilities in the sixth forms in State schools are not good enough. In the school in which I ran a sixth form for about 10 years the facilities which existed for about 120 students were exactly the same as they had been when I was there just before the war, although in terms of size there was no difference in the institution. In this instance this problem was overcome.
Running a sixth form is not merely a question of rustling up a few teachers and running a course according to an A-level syllabus. When we talk about a sixth form college I hope we are not merely using just another device to introduce comprehensive education but are expressing the view that a sixth form college would provide a number of facilities which are not available in some schools at the moment.
If I understood the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth correctly, he said that he hoped the C.A.T.s would not become too academic but would stick to their original last in this respect. If this is the case, it must be pointed out that far too many sixth form teachers, and far too many headmasters of schools in which there are sixth forms, because in the C.A.T.s there is less tang of the academic, will not give them the necessary accolade at prize day and the rest. The mere use of "technical" in many grammar schools is held to mean that it is slightly inferior to the grammar schools where the studies are more academic.
In recent years there has been a tendency to defend everything about the grammar schools, as though there is nothing wrong with them. I agree that there is a great deal right about them,


but we should give more thought to technical studies, and the weaknesses of sixth forms in this respect.
This leads me to the question of the supply of teachers. My right hon. Friend gave us some figures about this, and I understand that he is shortly to announce short-term measures to deal with this problem which, as he says, is the major one facing education at the moment.
Is sufficient account taken of the part which can be played in the supply of teachers by the extra-mural departments of the universities? When they first developed, in the early days of the W.E.A., and in association with the W.E.A., they were thought of from the point of view of fulfilling social purposes which were relevant to those days. The standard of courses provided—especially the three-year courses—runs to a very great depth. In many cases it goes far deeper than is the case with academic courses in training colleges. Properly arranged, it would be possible for mature students in particular to follow courses which would count as credits when those students went to teacher training colleges to do professional training. Such credits are awarded in America on a wide scale, and the system has some relevance here.
I would go a little further on the question of extramural departments and teacher training at the universities. The extramural departments get their moneys from the University Grants Committee, as do the departments of education and institutes of education. I am not convinced that the status—an overworked word in these days—of extramural departments in universities is high enough. I am not so sure that their pressure within the university heirarchy is great enough to ensure that they receive the amount of money that they ought to receive.
I am also sure that institutes of education and departments of education at many universities tend to be regarded as inferior. If a person is studying archaeology or some such subject it is fine, but once a person starts talking about studying education it is thought of as a soft option. It is regarded as something that a person can do for a year after having done three years' hard work—a year when he can back-pedal and

become more human before going out into the world. I wonder whether sufficient money is made available by the U.G.C. and the vice-chancellors to enable the extramural departments and the institutes of education to do their proper work.
On the question of teacher supply, I recall the former right hon. Member for South Shields, who was at the Board of Education during the war, in the days of the former Member for Saffron Walden, saying that at the end of the war, when the Board was considering the question of teacher supply—this was a long time ago—it discussed the matter with the vice-chancellors and that, to put it bluntly, the vice-chancellors were not very concerned about teacher supply. This is one reason why, when we are talking about the procedures and the administration of teacher training colleges, the importance of teacher supply has to be borne in mind, there is a necessity for the L.E.A.s to have a large say in the number of places available.

Mr. James Tinn: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that his argument that suitable courses of further education by the extramural departments should be considered for credit purposes in teacher training colleges is reinforced by the fact that in both the ancient universities such courses are already accepted as evidence when considering applications by students for full-time courses at those universities.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is quite right. The special relationship which exists between Ruskin College, Oxford, and other colleges at Oxford bears this out, although in a slightly different degree. This leads me to the question of the colleges of education. As one who spent two years just before the war at a teacher training college before eventually going on to the university, I am glad that the name has been changed. Perhaps I am over-stressing this question of status. The trouble with the training college is that it has a slight tang of the poor law and of such novels as "Tess of the D'Urbervilles"—that the children of the poor deserve to have a chance in life. There is something wrong about it, and I am glad that the name has been changed. I am equally glad that opportunities are given for the granting of degrees and training for degrees, because,


in my experience, one of the things about any form of higher education, whether it is at colleges of education or otherwise, is that after a year or two there is an emancipation; that when many young men and women who had never thought of taking a degree set foot in a technical college or a college of education, they begin to realise the possibilities which are involved.
I am glad also that we have tonight discussed the question of internal government of the colleges of education. I think that when the previous Secretary of State made his announcement on 11th December that changes were taking place, he said that the methods of internal governrnent were being reviewed. I wonder what pitch we have come to in this review. In my view, the administration of training colleges is not suitable to their status. For example, are the staff of colleges of education represented on the governing bodies? A problem arises out of this situation, which seems to receive approval from both Front Benches. The L.E.A.s must maintain an important position in the governments of colleges of education. If the governing bodies are to be free, will there not be a conflict, because is it not usually the governing body which makes the fundamental policy decisions? If the L.E.A.s are to retain that, there would immediately be a conflict with the governing body.
On the question of the granting of degrees, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth, argued—and it is a very respectable argument, which he has put in many places—that it would be wrong if all teachers had to aim for a university degree. There was a question of the content of the courses as well. I should like to put one problem which arises in many common rooms and, in so far as I followed both courses—the graduate course and the old two-year course—I have my foot in both camps. Someone may be doing a three-year course to some depth at a teacher training college, while, by reason of the politics of salary determination, somebody who has done a not very good degree at a university will immediately—by virtue only of having a degree, and not necessarily a good Honours degree—have about£60 or is it£90 per annum. Yet a comparison between the two is such that it ought to be the other way round. We have also had the case

put that many a graduate is not a very good teacher and that some very good natural teachers come out of the colleges of education. In this question of what is eventually to be the ratio between graduates and non-graduates in colleges of education, I hope that the question of salary will not be forgotten.
Two very brief questions come under this heading of higher education. The first is research. In the last year or two—perhaps a little longer—there has been far more research emanating from the Department. Grants are given to institutions of higher education in many ways. This is first-rate work and something which ought to have been done before. What are the procedures by which monies can be obtained for this research? One meets, while travelling round the country, people who have ideas for research and the question is asked, "Whom do I get in touch with? Do I write to the Department?"

Mr. Crosland: indicated assent.

Mr. Rees: I have had the answer right away. One writes to the Department. Can I put it another way? Is there any other machinery whereby the inspectorate, for example, can do something in this respect? Many of them have seen much of what is going on in the schools. This is the other side of the medal now to the hate side which 1 mentioned—all the very good work which inspectors do. I had to put that in because I have so many friends who are inspectors and I must put the record right.
The other point is administration. To run a big school these days one needs to be a manager, because it often contains more than 2,000 students. To run the average technical college, where there are perhaps 11,000 students in the course of a week, one also needs to be a manager. Is anything being done to train people to administer these schools? There is the administration staff college at Henley for top managers in business. There is the Industrial Training Act—I am glad to see present my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour—which is administered by the Ministry of Labour. But should not more be done in education? Should not more be done to train university administrators to think of the


problems and to deal with the problems which they will have to face.
I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) who mentioned the relationships between industry and the academic world at M.I.T., the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I hope to see such a relationship between the regional planning boards which are being set up and the universities in a region.
I know that the Department of Economic Affairs has given thought to some relationship whereby some research will be done for the regional planning board. I raise this tonight because I hope that, in so far as it has a peculiar relationship with the U.G.C., the Department will bear in mind that there will increasingly be requests and money will have to be provided by the regional planning board concerned, with its effect on staff provision, in order that regional plans can be worked out.
Higher education is fast becoming a major industry. I want to come back to my first point, which was the major reason that I rose this evening. Because it is a major industry, because it spends so much of the public monies, I hope that a great deal of attention will soon be given to the relationships between the Department and the U.G.C.—but not to limit academic freedom. Mere politicians should be the last people to interfere in this, but mere politicians are the first people who should consider the taxpayers' money which is being expended at an ever-growing rate.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: Before I reach the main point which I want to make in the debate, I should like to comment very briefly on some of the matters which have been raised. I should like to begin with universities and the failures at university. I have been particularly concerned about first-generation students at university who appear before me, as Chairman of the Further Education Sub-Committee, because they have left the university. I feel that much more could be done at university to interview students who are obviously finding themselves out of touch altogether with the normal routine, and who leave before they have had time to find their feet. I wish to draw the atten-

tion of the Secretary of State to that very serious problem. I am alarmed at the growing number.
I wish to mention two matters in connection with teacher supply. In respect of day training colleges, which have made a significant contribution to this the greatest problem that the education service faces, I think that we have erred a little in restraining the over 40s. When a mature student of 43, 44 or 45 makes application to a day training college, the possibility of gaining entry is very small In view of the great wastage, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) made a strong point, it seems to me that if we train a mature student, a married woman whose family has grown up, who is 45, 46 or even 48, at the completion of her training we are likely to have some valuable continuous service from her until retirement age. In the present crisis in teacher supply that is something which we certainly cannot afford to ignore.
Another point which has been borne in on me recently from personal experience is the great difficulty that we are experiencing in attracting teachers of physics, chemistry, mathematics and other subjects. One finds that well-qualified people, anxious to spend all their time teaching subjects of value, are wasting their time, as it were, setting up simple apparatus and doing all kinds of work in a school which might well be done by other people not so well qualified professionally. This applies particularly in my own area—I am sure that it applies also in other areas—where for the past century men have relied on the basic heavy industries—mining, ship building and so on. By retraining men in their 40s by a short course in a college of further education, they could be made first-class stewards in science laboratories. This would help to solve a great social problem and would make sure that the scarce teaching resources available are being used in the best interests. I commend that idea to the Secretary of State.
I wish to make only one other point on what has been raised in the debate. There is a fear among those employed in our regional technical colleges who are doing a very good job, and I speak with great authority in respect of the Sunderland Technical College—colleges


which have provided greater opportunities for students in their areas and from overseas as well—that the present concentration on colleges of advanced technology will result in the gap between regional colleges and the C.A.T.s being widened.
Much has been said—I appreciate the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) on the matter—about the need to continue sandwich courses and to encourage and stimulate those who having decided late to educate themselves in this way have missed the full-time courses at university and the like. It is essential that this should be carried on and extended. We want our regional technical colleges to be maintained at the sort of standard which will continue to attract teachers of the highest possible quality. Anything that the Secretary of State can do in that direction will be welcomed.
I wish now to turn to the real burden of my speech. It has always seemed to me that in this country we educate and we concentrate our resources on students of marked ability, very often at the expense of those with limited ability. One of the things that Crowther emphasised was the way in which most students leaving our secondary schools took for granted that further education was not for them. Fortunately, since the war there has been a change but much more needs to be done. One of the difficulties in talking about further education and those who are not going to the universities, who are not aiming for a university degree or even a teachers certificate, is that we are accused of wanting, as it were, to level down. Tonight we have spent our time discussing the small minority of young people who will go to university. Anything that I say tonight does not mean that I do not wish to continue to give to all our children who prove themselves capable the privilege and opportunity of a university education. We must continue to do that and to extend and increase the numbers who are admitted.
I wish to talk more about those who will continue at colleges of further education in the evenings, some in a part-time capacity, through day release and so on, and others as full-time students.

Crowther commenting on the world of further education said:
It is a world which often seems to those in schools to be a foreign country whose language is incomprehensible and for which they feel that a visa is probably necessary.
We have a great deal to learn in this connection. In British education we have a mania for visas. Every stage of education needs a visa and, unless a person is so qualified, somehow or other we persuade him that it would be a waste of time to attend a particular type of educational institution. It is alarming to realise that in 1959 only 1 in 8 of those in the 16 to 18-year-old group was in full-time education. Yet we know the number of children who are selected to go to a selective school at the age of 11. The aim laid down by Crowther was that by 1980 we should have 1 in 2.
It has been expressed on both sides of the House that we should regard continuous association with the education service in one way or another—certainly up to the age of 18—as the normal thing for all our children. One of the difficulties about British education has been this idea which has grown up and has been fostered—we have all accepted it in the past—that if we educate the top ability group and select an elite and educate them, in some way we are doing our job as a community and fulfilling our purpose as educationists. This is not a party matter. All of us serving in local authorities and in schools, anyone connected with the education service, realises the great necessity in this strange world in which we live of giving everyone, even those who are not easily singled out as being above the average, as much education as we can possibly provide for them. Nothing else will do if the education system is to meet the requirements of this tumultuous and dynamic century.
Since the White Paper of 1956, which was concerned with technical education, there has been a great advance. At one time I felt that vocational training was a dangerous innovation. I have completely changed my mind. There was a time when I strongly resisted the teaching of such things as typing and business subjects in the top forms of secondary schools. My argument against it was that anyone could be trained to type, but since then I have seen girls


who had lost all interest in formal education being introduced to business courses in which some of their time was taken up with what I would call the monotonous occupation of typewriting. However, their whole attitude to school had changed. School became a place with a relevance to the life which they hoped to follow when they left it and English and other subjects became things in which dedicated and able teachers were able to interest them.
If we can get rid of this mania for visas and attract more young people into further education, and persuade them to give part of their time—and some of them all of their time—to further study, the colleges will be performing an important task for those in training and for the nation.
It is difficult to draw a line between what is vocational and what is the personal development of the student. I suggest that it is impossible to divide education and training. We must guard against talking about young people as though they are productive units. We talk about preparation for this and that, but all young people have a right to the full development of their personalities at the time when they are studying—at the time when they are living—and not to be following something which will help them in, say, five years' time. That is why, when we are talking about industrial training and so on, the Department of Education and Science should play an increasing part.
One of the pernicious doctrines is that those who are going into manual work do not need further education. We must get away from this idea because in this modern industrial society there is a shortage of skills at every level and the main criterion must be the personality of the individual. Everyone has the right to all that we can give educationally.
Appreciating that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate I will conclude by saying that something which shocks people from abroad is the way in which we send our youngsters at such an early age into workshops, mines, factories and so on. This transition from school to adult life is always bewildering and sometimes it is overwhelming. We must not treat the colleges of further education—and I do not plead that

we should not do anything about our universities—as places where children who would otherwise go into manual jobs can train to take white collar jobs. That is not the idea of colleges of further education.
There is nothing wrong or evil about one wanting to improve on the occupation one has followed. We have a necessary duty in our colleges of further education to provide all the facilities—swimming baths, assembly halls and so on where drama, physical education and other activities can take place—to give an atmosphere of cultural activity for every mature citizen to enjoy.
While I have been interested in what has been said about our universities, I plead for those who hitherto have gone straight from school into adult life, many of whom have found the change almost beyond them. In further education we have a tremendous opportunity to enable our youngsters to become mature citizens in every sense of the word.

7.16 p.m.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I am sure that the whole House wholeheartedly supports the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) on his emphasis of the importance of further education. I pay tribute to the part which he played in the development of Sunderland Technical College and the part which the technical colleges generally in the North-East have played in the very necessary revitalisation of the outlook of the working comunity, which is apparent at all levels of society and throughout the colleges.
Before coming to my main theme, I thank the Secretary of State for his reference to the possibility of a new technical university in the North-East. His statement will be helpful and we look forward, as the consideration of this matter proceeds, to a further statement from him on this issue. We all welcomed the statement that he wished, to consult with the U.G.C. on the question of a site. I suggest that it might also be helpful for him to discuss the matter with the new Regional Council and Board, which are concerned with all aspects of the life of the region and not only with the educational aspect, which is certainly not the only factor involved in the choosing of a site.
I also thank the Minister for commenting on the subject which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams): the provision of care for the children of women wishing to return to teaching. My hon. Friend suggested that nursery classes should be provided where their provision would result in a net increase in teacher supply to schools generally.
I suggest that there is an even simpler action; the admission of children to school before the age of five. This is now generally done by most education authorities for mothers who are returning to teaching. It is not always done for women who wish to attend day training colleges to qualify as teachers. The Minister of State, by means of intervention with one of my local authorities, has been able to help in one case, but there are many others which could be helped if this matter were explored in regard to teacher training as well as teaching.
The Secretary of State's concluding remark was that he looked to the expansion of higher education to have a great influence in the country generally towards social equality. It is about that that I want to speak.
In university expansion, in the most unbiblical manner, seven lean years have been followed by seven fat years, and if we look ahead we see that, from 1970, seven fat years will be followed by seven even fatter years—and quite how fat these will be is hidden in the obscurities and depths of the appendices to the Robbins Report.
I question very much whether I correctly interpret these tables, but I read in Table Z.2 of Appendix 1—and I am sure that someone in the Department will check this—that the number of students from England and Wales entering English and Welsh universities between 1960 and 1970 is likely to go from 24,000 to 36,000—an increase of 50 per cent. in ten years. That is staggering enough, in all conscience, but between 1970 and 1980 the number of students entering universities will double from 36.000 to 72,000. If we average that out in terms of university places it seems to be a rather smooth curve, but it will have the most terriffic impact, not only on the practice of schools but even more

on employment when the students come out—a social impact.
The Robbins Report quite rightly dodged the question of the demand for university graduates. It took up the position that if there are students coming forward qualified for university education they should have it, but as the Secretary of State referred to the need for a continuing Robbins Committee as it were—as also did the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle)—I should like to urge that this continuing standing Robbins Committee should turn its attention rather more to the demand for university graduates than the original Robbins Committee wanted to do—and this for a number of very practical reasons.
First of all, there is the question of absolutely definitely known demands for graduates, and the most important and pressingly urgent demand is that for teachers. This has been well appreciated by Professor Klaus Moser and those working with him—some of them from the Department of Education. They are working on a comprehensive model of the whole education system, dealing with the emergence of children, through different stages of education, into further and higher education, and then back into teaching, with the appropriate lags and taking into account all the appropriate fall-outs at different stages.
Following from this the steps can be taken now to avoid certain unforeseen eventualities in ten years' time. Professor Klaus Moser observed the other day that the excess of technological places in universities this year has been the result, not of planning but of half planning, in that we have had the places in universities but not in relation to the kind of children coming forward in the schools. His present work will certainly avoid the worst disparities of this kind occurring within the educational system in the future.
But it is very necessary to extend this work from the educational system to the labour market in general. This is being tackled in the field of scientific and technological manpower by Sir Willis Jackson's Committee, in integration with the educational model. That Committee is using sophisticated techniques. It is not just sending out questionnaires asking "How many people do you expect


to employ in twenty years' time?" but, "If this, then what?"—on a kind of input-output basis of what is likely to happen and how to fit in considerations of alternative possibilities, and so on.
That kind of approach is not being taken in the general manpower field. There is a marked difference in the type of approach used in the manpower research unit of the Ministry of Labour and the statistical section of the Department of Education. I hope that the Secretary of State will initiate discussions on this subject with a view to the kind of decisions his Department will have to take, and will have to argue with the Treasury, not only in the course of the next few years but immediately.
First of all, there is for my right hon. Friend the question of the type of provision we make within higher education. Does the Chairman of the University Grants Committee, in talking with a vice-chancellor, say, "You can have so many thousands of£s, and with it you can build a science department or you can build an arts department", with the vice-chancellor having to make up his mind which, because he cannot have both? If he makes a mistake, in the short term, money lost; in the longer term, it is a mismatching of the needs of the community to the outflow from the universities.
There is also the question of the ease with which my right hon. Friend will be able to justify the even more gigantic expenditure of the 'seventies. There will be the need during the 'seventies not only to provide additional places but also to tease out the provision for the expansion that is taking place during the 'sixties. In this connection, I would mention the subject of student accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin has rightly said that it is better to be a student in a garret than not to be a student at all, but this appears in a rather different light when one realises that in Oxford and Cambridge 57 per cent. of the students are in college residence, while only 15 per cent. are in college residence in the provincial universities in England and Wales; that in Oxford and Cambridge the average student spends two years in three in college, while in provincial universities only half the students can

spend even one year in college. So long as this is so, there will be a disparity in the preference of students for different universities.
This is the kind of redressing of the balance that the Secretary of State will have to do, and will want to do in the 'seventies, and for which he will have to justify very much bigger increases in spending on higher education even than are dreamt of today.
If the Secretary of State is to justify the high spending in economic terms, in terms of the need of the community for university graduates, he will also, in view of what he has said on many occasions, be very concerned with the social implications. There are here two factors that should begin to be discussed in view of the increasing effect they will have on the educational scene in the next few years.
The first is the fact of not being one in twenty-five, when one is a university graduate, but of being one in twelve, or one in fewer than twelve. The Secretary of State correctly said that the spread of higher education diminishes inequality. It does this in one sense, in that it admits more students to the privilege of higher education, but it does so in another sense, in that it diminishes the scarcity value of higher education. University students in the future will not always be doing the same kind of job that university students have done in the past.
If not faced squarely in bringing the prospects of career development, and so on, clearly into the minds of school children going to university, and into the minds of university students, this will result in a very frustrated generation of graduates in the latter part of this century. But there is no reason why it should, because we can apply the same principle as we have done to higher education to the organisation of the economy generally and to the organisation of methods of production generally so that in fact we develop industry in those directions which provide interesting work which people are educated up to doing, just as today we provide higher education places for those who are qualified for them. This is a matter in which the type of sophisticated approach which


is being taken within education needs to be extended.
The other factor, apart from the internal balance within a generation of the number of university graduates, is the relationship between different generations, the fact that in one generation the deputy town clerk will be a graduate and in the older generation he will not be one but will be somebody who has taken all the examinations during the course of his service in the local government department. If the balance between the generations is to be redressed, there will have to be large in-service retraining at all levels—at the higher education level, at the further education level, and at the industrial training level. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) mentioned this. This is something for which provision must be made, not merely in the nooks and crannies of higher education during vacations on university sites, but also in the structure of the university.
The question should be considered whether it is right to channel all the funds for the expansion of higher education through the university, rather than, say, through agencies which would have a more direct financial interest in encouraging the kind of adult training and retraining courses which the community needs. Consider the problem of a professor in social sciences at a redbrick university who wants to organise courses in social sciences for the social administrators—local government officials, welfare workers, and so on—in his area. He has to persuade his colleagues to lecture on this kind of course. To do so he needs funds. This work is as academically important and challenging, leading to as interesting research as any that these people would find in the internal world of the university, but the professor needs to bring pressures to bear upon his colleagues to entice them into this wider field of work. Whether this is to be done by a modification of the sources of finance for universities, with vastly more contract work coming from outside, or whether it is to be done simply by pressure from the U.G.C., is a matter which the university world needs to discuss, but under the very active influence of outside bodies including Parliament.
I am sure that the House generally will recognise the expansionist mood that

there is on both sides of the House with regard to higher education. One cannot help comparing the situation today with that during a previous period of financial stringency. One very much hopes that in the continuing battles with the Treasury which go on right throughout the year the expansion of education will be seen as a continuing high priority.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Chataway: The Secretary of State for Education and Science in his opening remarks chided my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) with taking a more expansionist view today than he did in a speech in 1962 when he was Financial Secretary, a less expansionist view then than he took as Minister of Education. Perhaps it is fair to point out to the Secretary of State and to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), who made a similar point just now, that we notice a considerable contrast between the expansionism of right hon. and hon. Members who were spokesmen for the Labour Party in the summer of last year and the attitudes of those who occupy the Government Front Bench now. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who made most of the categorical pledges in the summer of last year, is now banished to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources looking after allotments. The Secretary of State cannot be altogether surprised if some of the bolder pledges which were then made are coming home to roost with him.
The Secretary of State has, I know, had strong representations, as have many hon. Members, from the National Union of Students, which wants to see the abolition of the means test. The union fairly points to what was said when the Anderson Report was being debated by hon. Members who now sit opposite, namely, that the means test would be immediately abolished if Labour came to power. We have always taken the view that it would be wrong to take that step in the near future. I think that the Robbins Committee is right in saying that ours is a university system which treats students in this respect more generously than most. I think that there may be a case in the very near future for revising those grants. I am sure that the National Union of


Students will have noticed in a number of the speeches made today an attitude more critical of university expenditure or, at least from the hon. Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), a desire to ensure that we get full value for money from university expenditure.
Again, there was a considerable contrast between what the Secretary of State said today about the massive investment that is taking place in higher education and what was said in the Labour Party Manifesto about the need so urgently and enormously to step up investment in all forms of higher education.
To quote one short example, in adult education last summer some most surprising promises were made by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The Secretary of State cannot be surprised that the adult education world is not altogether overjoyed with the£60,000 increase he was able to announce the other day. Incidentally, if I may put the record straight, at Question Time the Secretary of State suggested that the grants for 1964–65 were held at the same level as the grants for 1963–64. It is true that we said in that year that we did not believe that the increased grants we were giving would enable a further expansion of work to take place, but the figures in fact show that, whereas grants in 1963–64 were running at just under£880,000, they were over£1 million for 1964–65. The record over the last 10 years for adult education shows a rise from some£390,000 to over £1 million. The increase that the Secretary of State has announced this year of£60,000 is less than the average increase over the last decade.
Throughout this short debate there has run a very strong interest in the non-university part of higher education. The truth is that the immediate post-Robbins era is not an altogether easy one for this sector of education. It was bound to be difficult, because institutions outside the university world must be conscious of the contrast between their own dependent position and the autonomous status of the universities. A number of hon. Members have pointed to this. In accepting the broad pattern of the Robbins recommendations, the last Government were always aware of the problems which

would be posed for the non-university sector. It was always clear that, if there was too rigid a line of demarcation between those inside and those outside the favoured university circle, many students would suffer.
Two decisions by the present Government—we have supported both of them—have rendered all this more important. First, the Government have rejected the Robbins recommendations for the teacher training colleges. They are to remain with the local education authorities and are not to be brought within the sphere of the universities. Whatever the merits of that decision, and I think that on balance it was right, it was bound to bring disappointment to the teacher-training colleges and leave some of them with the feeling that they were to be left below the salt.
Secondly, the Government have announced that there are to be no new universities after the present batch within the next decade. This removes from the regional technical colleges a dream which many of them have had. Many of them over a period of years have looked forward to the possibility of evolving into colleges of advanced technology or else into universities. The House must be concerned to ensure that the Government are fully aware of the problems and will take all the steps they can to encourage technical and education colleges and the whole world of non-university education.
The former Secretary of State announced on 11th December that he was going to institute a review of the internal government of the education colleges. It has been already asked what has hap-happened to the review. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister of State, because it is now three months later and still no study group has been set up. This seems to be rather sluggish progress. One gathers that the Secretary of State's first proposals for the study group contained no members from the university world. This suggestion was therefore quite naturally not acceptable to representatives of teachers in the colleges and departments of education. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that the Minister has had second thoughts about this. The previous Secretary of State went out of his way in his December statement to claim that, although he was rejecting the administrative arrangements


proposed by the Robbins Committee, nevertheless he was anxious to accept the spirit of the Robbins Report and to ensure for the colleges the kind of status which the Robbins Report recommended.
It seems in these circumstances unreasonable to exclude university people from the review process. After all, they are among the most qualified to speak knowledgeably about the proper internal government of institutions of higher education. It is very reasonable therefore that those concerned with education colleges should want the advice of university people in working out these new arrangements. I do not think that there can be any decent arguments for excluding university teachers and vice-chancellors from this review. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us more about that this evening.
I want also to press upon the Government the idea of a similar review for the further education colleges. Local education authorities, in my experience, vary greatly in the way in which they administer their technical colleges and some ride them on a very close rein indeed. Further education colleges do a remarkable job. The way in which they have developed and expanded since the mid-1960s constitutes perhaps the most remarkable single feature of education expansion over the last ten years. I was interested in what the Secretary of State had to say about his own reaction to further education when he came to the Department.
It is true that not nearly enough is known about further education colleges, and I hope that the recent study of and improvement in their public relations will lead to a wider understanding on the part of other people in the education world. Many of these colleges cope with a bewildering variety of courses and levels of ability. Many of them are more comprehensive than any of the comprehensive American universities. At one end of the academic scale they provide, often with outstanding success, for children whose interests have never been engaged at school. These colleges have often provided for those children the first key that fits the door to educational advance. At the other end they cater for university level work.
At both ends, the technical colleges face some uncertainty today, and they

are bound to do so. At one end they cannot be sure yet what will be the effects of raising the school-leaving age in the 1970s and at the other the post-Robbins world and the new Council for Academic Awards present them with a new prospect. If the colleges are not to feel too strongly the contrast between their own status and the position of universities—and the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin urged strongly and effectively that we must seek to blur what could be very rigid distinctions in the Robbins set-up—some attention must urgently be given to the way in which these colleges are governed. There is no complaint from some at the way in which they are administered by their local education authorities, but there is elsewhere considerable frustration at some of the petty regulations under which they have to operate. Some heads of departments and principals do not have the freedom and discretion which they ought to have.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth has put forward the suggestion that the regional colleges and the area technical colleges should have statutory governing bodies. I am sure that this would be of help, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be considering that proposal. If the regional technical colleges are to attract and hold the quality of staff they need, the internal government of these colleges needs looking at in just the same way as the Secretary of State intends to look at the internal government of the colleges of education.
I should like to refer briefly to the decision which the Government have taken over numbers in the colleges of education. I think it a very strange procedure to announce figures for 1973 shortly in advance of a report from the National Advisory Council. If there are some reasons for urgency about this announcement that escape me I hope that the Minister of State will be able to point to them, but I find it difficult to believe that we need to know the figures at which the Government are aiming in 1973 with such urgency that we cannot wait for the Advisory Council's report. Still, that decision has been taken and all we can hope is that the Government will be prepared to look at it and review it in the light of


whatever recommendations they receive from the Advisory Council.
I must comment, however, on one line of argument which the Secretary of State used in his speech today and which I have seen reported on occasions in the Press. He has argued that by announcing this 1973 figure, whereas the previous Government only announced the figure for 1970, he has somehow embarked upon a massive new expansion of teacher-training colleges. He has produced this piece of arithmetic to show that if the teacher-training colleges had been held throughout the 1970s at the figure which we intended to reach in 1970, that is 80,000, rather than increased in the way he suggests, we should have had larger classes in the mid-1980s than we shall have under his proopsals. The argument is unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will not produce it again. We might just as well work out what the size of classes would now be if the teacher-training colleges had been held at the latest figure announced by the Labour Government in 1951.
My right hon. Friend always made clear that, although we had announced figures up to 1970, in accepting the Robbins target of 390,000 for 1973–74, we accepted, of course, that teacher training colleges would go on expanding past 1970. The only reason why we did not announce target figures for later years was that it did not seem to be urgent to do so, and we were, of course, awaiting the report of the National Advisory Council. I hope that the Minister of State will be prepared to say that the Government will look again at these post-1970 figures in the light of the report.
I accept that no expansion of the teacher-training colleges will solve our difficulties. Expanding the teacher-training colleges is a long-term investment. It does not show any reduction in the size of classes at an early date. Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend said, the plans which we laid for the early 1970s can have a substantial effect on class sizes in later years, and it may be, in view of our unhappy experience in recent years in that the birthrate has been rising so much, the wastage has been so much greater, and marriage has been so much earlier than we expected, that we are inclined to be over-pessimistic.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: What is so unhappy about that?

Mr. Chataway: Nothing at all. I am happy, except from the point of view of class sizes, which have been pushed up as a result. Of course, all the results of Conservative prosperity leading to a greater degree of social well being are cause for satisfaction, though, unfortunately, not from the point of view of class sizes. However, as I say, we may have been a little too pessimistic about the future. While I accept that no expansion of the teacher-training colleges can be a substitute for all the other actions, some of which were referred to in the debate, for reducing class sizes, I feel that we ought nevertheless to look carefully at the figures after we have the advice of the National Advisory Council.

7.52 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. R. E. Prentice): We have had a wide-ranging and most interesting debate in which a number of speakers have made important points. In some ways, I feel most gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for having intervened. In the time I have been in the House, I have listened to a great many Scottish questions from both sides, but I never imagined that I should have to answer any of them, and I was in the dreadful position, at one stage today, of thinking that I might be called upon to do so. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having intervened and having relieved me of at least that duty.
As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) said, we ought to have debates of this kind from time to time. They can take place in a new context since the change of Ministerial responsibility relating to universities took place last year, and it seems a proper corollary of that change that there should be Parliamentary debates of this kind which, of course, need not in any way be inconsistent with academic freedom but which can range over the role of the universities and the relationship between the Government and the universities and between the universities and the community. We have made a good start with the debate we have just had. If I had any complaint about the debate at all, it would be that, on


the whole, it was too peaceful and non-controversial, but, when the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) began, he sailed in with a few controversial points, and it is to these that I shall react straight away, particularly to two of them.
The hon. Gentleman took us to task for our attitude on student grants and our failure to meet the wishes of the National Union of Students. He says that this is inconsistent with our past attitude, and that is just as well because, if our present attitude is under fire, so is the attitude of the previous Government as well. This question has already been raised at Question Time in recent weeks. On 18th March, my right hon. Friend said, in reply to a Question, that he considered that there were many other matters in education which had higher priority than removing the parents' contribution in respect of student grants, pointing out that it would at present cost about£18 million to abolish the parent's contribution.
I simply make the point that it is a question of priorities. Many of us have taken the view in the past—I have certainly taken it myself—that it would be good if the parent's contribution could be abolished, but this was not a feature of our election manifesto. It was a feature of a report on higher education to the Labour Party by a committee presided over by Lord Taylor, the foreword to which by the Prime Minister made clear that we were not committed to these items in detail. Therefore, this remains something on which many of us have our aspirations, as we have on so many aspects of education, but on which we have to have regard to the order of priorities in which, unfortunately, it cannot rate as high as we should like.
As the House may be aware, the current rate of award for student grants, which was fixed in 1962, are under review at present by the Standing Advisory Committee on Grants to Students. The Committee will be reporting to my right hon. Friend before long, and any changes which he accepts as a result of its recommendations will date from the beginning of the September term this year. Thus, the amount of awards is under review but the question of abolition must, I am afraid, wait while so many other things are dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman had a bit of fun about an alleged change of attitude on our part towards the need to expand in education. He thought that we had, as it were, been deflated by coming into office. What happened was really this. The relevant change of attitude occurred in hon. Members opposite in the 12 months or so before the last election. In so far as we condemn their concept of education as being too limited and too restrictive, we are attacking them on the record of 13 years. We quite appreciate that the death-bed repentances in which they indulged in the last 12 months brought them close to our policy. We congratulate them on coming close to our policy, though we do not congratulate them on the reasons. This was true of their introduction of the Industrial Training Act, a potentially great educational reform but a Measure which they introduced years after we had demanded it. The same is true of the new school-building programmes announced in October, 1963, and it is true of their acceptance of the Robbins Report which they accepted almost before they had had time to read it. They underwent a conversion to our policy, and this, presumably, is why the debate has been so non-controversial today.
I shall try now to reply to as many of the points raised as one reasonably can at a time when the House has many other matters to deal with between now and some much later hour. The hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) raised an important point applying not only to Scotland but to the whole of Great Britain when she emphasised the need for more girls to qualify in science. We are very concerned about this, and I can tell the House that it is being considered along with the general questions of science and technology in the schools to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier. It is an aspect of the study which will be carried out by Professor Dainton, and I agree that it ought to be most carefully considered.
There is some danger here that the schools are made a scapegoat for failures in society to offer opportunities to girls who train as scientists or in related subjects. There are not the career prospects for girls well trained in science that there should be. Therefore, changes in attitude have to occur in that sense as


well, perhaps, as changes in the schools and colleges to cope with this problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) raised a number of points relating to teacher supply. I would not like to go into detail on everything she and other hon. Members said about teacher supply because my right hon. Friend is considering now the terms of a statement that he will be making in a few weeks time. But perhaps there are one or two points on which I could usefully comment. One is the question of education authorities employing part time teachers.
The Department has been taking steps for some time to try to encourage the wider employment of part time teachers by local education authorities and there has been a very welcome increase in their number in the past few years. Our inquiries show a considerable variation, however, in the performances of education authorities in this matter. A recent survey showed the methods that are being used by a number of education authorities that have a good record in this respect and these results have been drawn together in a document which will be made public in order that their good example will be drawn to the attention of other local education authorities. We shall be following this up as far as we can.
There is variation not only between local education authorities but between the attitudes of some head teachers towards the employment of part timers. We want to discourage the attitude adopted by some head teachers who would rather put up with the teacher shortage than face the problems which sometimes arise in fitting part timers into the timetable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin also mentioned, in discussing part-timers, the provision of nursery classes. I remind her that, last year, the Department sent out a circular containing a very important modification in the general ban on the provision of nursery schools and nursery classes. The circular indicated that the Department would welcome the provision of nursery classes in existing buildings where it would lead to a net addition to the teaching force. In other words, taking account of the fact that the nursery class

itself requires a teacher, if the number of children of teachers attending the class is such that there is a net addition, however small, to the teaching force, then we encourage such a class. We want to follow this up with another circular asking how the modification in the earlier circular has been used and reminding the local authorities of our attitude.

Sir E. Boyle: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea how many authorities so far have taken advantage of the circular? The last figure I heard, when the election was taking place, was eight authorities—or at least three or four certainly and a possible four others. Has the hon. Gentleman any more recent information?

Mr. Prentice: My impression is that it is a larger number but it is only an impression. I will provide the right hon. Gentleman with the figure. It is an important matter. We are trying to get information on it at the moment, and it may well be that our information is not complete just now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South(Mr. Merlyn Rees) raised a number of very important points, the main one relating to the accountability of the universities in matters of finance and the need for them to use their resources fully. He described, rightly, the universities as a major industry with the duty, like any other major industry, to use its resources efficiently. I do not think that I need remind him that the Estimates and Public Accounts Committees are considering this matter now. He himself is a member of the Estimates Committee. We will be studying their reports.
Certainly we share the view that value for money is an extremely important principle. Equally, I need hardly reiterate that we stand by the principle of academic freedom. The task of the Government is to reconcile these two principles. It would be fair to add that our impression is that the majority of vice-chancellors are conscious of the problem and are doing their best to get value for money in every possible way.
My hon. Friend also asked about the role that could be played in teacher training by extramural classes, arranged by universities, the W.E.A. and other bodies. He may not be aware that this is a factor taken into account already by principals of teacher training colleges


in their power to remit part of the teacher training period. Whereas the normal period is three years, the principal has authority to remit perhaps one or two years of this period in relation to relevant experience or relevant education—and that certainly includes the type of course to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend also asked about research. I am glad he did so. It is useful to draw attention to the fact that the research effort of the Department has increased in recent years. The answer to his question on how to get a project considered is simple. We should be glad to hear in writing, with as much detail as possible, of any worth-while proposal which could be considered and I am glad to point this out to him and others with ideas about various problems.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the training of administrators in further education. Again, I am glad that he drew attention to this. I myself am glad of the opportunity to draw attention to the very good work being done at the Further Education Staff College in Somerset, where training courses of all kinds are arranged for people in technical colleges and other colleges of further education and also for training officers in industry. Courses recently have included study conferences for principals of colleges of education and I am informed that over half the principals in the country have attended now a series of study conferences on the administration of their colleges, which, I think, was the very point my hon. Friend had in mind.
Perhaps I may comment on two points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West(Dr. Bray) in his very interesting speech. He drew attention to the need for manpower statistics to be available in a more sophisticated form. I know of his interest and knowledge of this subject. He and I worked together on a committee on it when we were in Opposition and I am sure that he is right in the importance he attaches to the problem.
There is a need within Government for more sophisticated methods of manpower forecasting and manpower budgeting. This again is one of those things that have developed in recent years. If I

were being controversial, I would say that this is another suggestion by the Labour Party which the late Government took up very late in their term of office. But there is an effort going on in the Ministry of Labour which needs developing on a much wider scale and the Government are paying attention to it. My right hon. Friend takes a great interest in the subject and is studying it in relation to higher education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West, was absolutely right in drawing attention to the social effects of the spread of higher education. It would be fair to say that here he was posing questions rather than providing answers. I think that most of us are still in that position. I think that, as we spread educational opportunity, as it grows and as the methods of applying such opportunity become more efficient so that people no longer miss the bus by accident on the scale that they used to, society as a whole will have enormous problems to cope with.
We may be in some danger of moving from the old forms of class distinction and snobbery into forms of intellectual snobbery and other forms which may be more cruel than the old distinctions. The man at the bottom of the ladder will no longer be able to say that he never had a chance. He will probably have had his chance but did not use it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Surely this is a dangerous argument. The quality of the education is involved. The Scots have always had an attitude to education which has been much more beneficent than the English. If quality of education is present, then the fact that there is a great spread of education will break down class barriers, but it will not set out to base itself on intellectual class barriers. Education is more than the provision of professional or even intellectual qualifications.

Dr. Bray: Is not Scotland a very interesting example of a community which has not been able to absorb its own educational product?

Mr. Prentice: I am glad to have sparked off this discussion. Of course I was not suggesting that the spread of education opportunity was something to be regretted. Of course I accept that it breaks


down barriers. I was merely suggesting that it could also create new barriers and new difficulties and that we had to be aware of this and think deeply about it and try to find the answers to these problems. I am in exactly the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West in merely posing the questions rather than providing the answers. I suspect that many of the answers may simply lie within ourselves and the attitude which we take to each other and the need for greater tolerance and greater mutual respect, recognising everyone we meet as probably better than we are at something or other and respecting him for that. But so far as there are social answers, we are still groping for them and I suggest that the House ought to return to this problem from time to time.
I should like to say a word or two about the colleges of education and first about the target figures announced by my right hon. Friend. He said when he announced our targets for 1973 that he would be receiving a report of the National Advisory Council and that he would consider it and any recommendations. In a sense, of course, this involves a consideration of the target figures for any particular year. Nevertheless, it seemed to him and the Government at that time that the answers were due, and perhaps overdue, to a number of problems which were raised by the Robbins Committee and that that consideration applied not merely to the figures for the teacher-training colleges, or the colleges of education in 1973, but to a number of other things—the question of the SISTERs and other outstanding questions, and that it would be of value to everyone in education to give our answers to these questions as we saw them at the moment.
I would have thought in all these questions of target figures of students, for all sorts of reasons, many raised in the debate, that these were things liable to change over the years. Nevertheless, there has to be a medium term and a slightly longer term view at any time in order that policies can be fitted in with targets.
I should like to comment on the questions of other hon. Members about the administration of the colleges of

education, because here we are faced with two relevant recommendations of the Robbins Committee. The first is that for selected students there should be four-year courses leading to a degree which would have the full status of a university degree, but for which study would have incorporated appropriate vocational training. The other recommendation was that the colleges should have independent governing bodies outside local authorities and that these should be federated with the university institutes of education. As the House knows, the Government accepted the first and did not accept the second recommendation.
In accepting the first, we took the view that the links between the universities and the colleges ought to be strengthened, and I can tell the House that there are now discussions between the institutes of education and the colleges, discussions which we hope will be fruitful in this respect. This will not be a process likely to produce quick results, but we hope that there will be coming into the system within a reasonable time a new source of graduate teachers who will take the kind of degree which is envisaged in the Robbins Report. There is the task of reconciling the problem of effective vocational training with academic training leading to a proper degree in the university sense without the whole process taking too long. It is not a simple matter, but it is now under discussion.
We had a number of considerations in mind in not accepting the other recommendation. The Government took the view that local education authorities had a vital rôle in teacher supply and in discharging that rôle over the years had founded colleges and administered colleges, on the whole successfully. I take the view that sometimes some unhappy examples of clumsy administration by local authorities cause people to generalise and to attack local authority control in general. I would have thought that this was a respect in which, as in so many others, local democracy usually worked well and where bad examples were matters which could be tackled within the context that the general record was successful.
We also had to take account of the fact that university opinion on the subject


was divided and that not all universities wanted to have these colleges under their umbrella. We also had to take account of the fact that programmes of teacher supply and teacher training must be publicly accountable to a degree not easy to reconcile with the traditional academic freedom of the universities. All those reasons influenced us in making this decision.
At the same time, we recognised that there was a case for looking at the internal administration of these colleges and seeing to what extent difficulties could he ironed out. On that I can tell the House that there have already been a number of preliminary talks of a fairly informal character among local education authorities and the teachers in the colleges and the voluntary bodies concerned. These talks are now to take the form of a study group which will take place within my Department, which is to provide the facilities for it and the chairmanship of the group. On the study group will be represented the L.E.A.s and the A.T.C.D.E., which is the organisation for the teachers in the training colleges, and the voluntary bodies. The universities' views will be welcome and they will be asked to come in and talk with the study group, but it was felt on balance to be better that the universities should not actually be members of the study group itself. That was the view of both the local authorities and the Government.
This is essentially a matter in which the internal administration could be improved and is therefore primarily a matter between the authorities who run the colleges and the people who work in them, but of course they will welcome the views of the universities and others who may have a view to express.

Sir E. Boyle: May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question on that? I am very grateful to him for being so informative about the subject, but can he say whether the universities are prepared to take part on that basis and are ready not to be members of the group, but to come in and give evidence, as it were? Have they expressed their willingness to follow this procedure?

Mr. Prentice: The answer is that many would have preferred to take part, but it is difficult to give a precise answer,

because when one speaks of the universities it is difficult to know whether one is speaking of vice-chancellors or institutes, and they do not necessarily have an identity of view. We hope and expect that university opinion in general will accept this solution and will be willing to give evidence on that basis, although there will be some resentment that the other approach was not used.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I know that this is a very difficult topic to discuss and I am glad that my hon. Friend is being so informative, but can he say whether the Department will give consideration to the very small L.E.A.s who are one instance from which the examples to which he was referring earlier have sometimes come?

Mr. Prentice: Yes. That is a proper study for the study group. It would be fair to say that within the L.E.A.s and the associations of local authorities and the associations of education committees there would be a general view among those who take a leading part that they will want to bring the less satisfactory authorities up to the standards of the others. This is a view which they share, as well as being the view of the Department.
This afternoon we have been discussing a programme of rapid expansion which has many problems, and within this expansion there are a number of borderline problems and priority problems. There are arguments about the proper rôle and the relative importance of various parts of the higher education service and it is worth reminding ourselves that we are considering an expansion of the whole range, an expansion of the older universities to take in larger numbers, a vast expansion with new universities over what was originally expected, the creation of new types of universities with the colleges of advanced technology and a very large expansion of colleges of education and an expansion of higher education within the further education in the technical colleges and so on. It is of importance and significance that a number of hon. Members have drawn attention to the relevance of this to our economy and the need to modernise the industrial, commercial and professional life of this country. Account is being taken of all this, I think—hon. Members may differ as to the extent of it —within the expansion programme.
The hon. Member for Devizes(Mr. Charles Morrison) raised two matters of great importance. The application of automation and, in particular, the introduction of computers and that kind of development in industry is reflected as part of the expansion programme. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, on 1st March, announced a review of university computer requirements to be carried out by the U.G.C. and the Council for Scientific Policy to draw up a five-year purchasing programme.
The other matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred was management education. I think that he was on the right lines. The two specialised schools for management studies within the universities both expect to take their first students in the autumn of this year. One school is in London, the other in Manchester. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this should spark off a greater expansion of management education in this country. There is already provision in the colleges of various kinds, much of which is still under-subscribed. This is a serious reflection on the attitude of management to this matter.
I should like to see the attitude of management towards further education approximate, in some ways, more closely to that of the Armed Forces. I was in the Army for 4¼ years. I did not have a very good time, but one thing which I remember happily is the extent to which, in the Army and other Armed Forces, it is considered proper for people at various stages in their career to go on courses and be retrained. In too much of British industry it is still a sign of weakness if a man asks permission to go on a course. This attitude must change radically. We need an extension of trained professional people, from the errand boy to the managing director—particularly the managing director, if only to train him to have an influence on the people whom he employs.
Another point relevant to this theme is the emphasis given by my right hon. Friend and other speakers to the importance in the colleges of advanced technology to their keeping their technological rôle and not becoming—if I may put this in quotes—"too academic". Of course, they will have what my hon.

Friend the Member for Leeds, South called an academic tang. But the sandwich courses, in particular, should continue and should be expanded as part of the growth of education and of industrial training in the years ahead.
Here I should like to add one point arising out of what has been said. One weakness is that many of the colleges have wanted to do more and have found that industry has not been prepared to play its part, or a sufficient part, in the sandwich course arrangements. I hope that the new machinery of the Industrial Training Act will be used in this connection. The powers of the Industrial Training Board are relevant to this. They should be used for training at this level as well as other levels. They can provide that lever which will encourage firms to play a greater rôle in the provision of sandwich courses.
Continuing with this theme, there is the question of the future of the technical colleges. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North suggested that we should have a study made of their future and their administration similar to that which we are undertaking for the colleges of education. This is a matter which we have under review. My right hon. Friend is about to initiate discussions on this with the national representative bodies concerned. This is not a precisely parallel exercise to the exercise on the colleges of education, although it will include considerations of the way in which the colleges are administered as well as their rôle in the provision of education.
I would simply like to add this point—again it is in line with what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Durham, North-West(Mr. Armstrong) and Leeds, South and other hon. Members—that in these colleges, whereas we want to see the higher education part of their programme expand, we also want to see every other part of their programme expand. In some colleges there is an over-preoccupation with status. In the ambition of the principals of colleges to do more degree work and more higher work of various kinds, some of them may be tempted to jettison the other useful work which they do. This is an attitude which we should not encourage, because we want to see the whole of further education expand.
The exciting and worth-while aspect of further education is that it provides a spectrum of education. Those who go to the technical colleges for one type of course may find doors opening for other types of course. The apprentice going in for day release at 16 years of age may come into contact with evening classes on all kinds of subjects which may open up interests which may last him for the rest of his life. These are some of the most exciting aspects of the education pattern. We want to see the whole spectrum of further education expand to a very large extent in the years ahead.
The words "expand" and "expansion" have occurred several times in speeches today. We should make no apology for this. This is an exciting period of educational development in which all of us have to ensure that the expansion takes effect in the right way and as rapidly as possible. Many of the things which we are doing are years overdue. I make this point against the attitudes of people in authority, industry, the universities, educational administration, the local authorities, and so on. As a nation, we have not had a large enough or good enough programme. Now we must have a mood of impatience in which we are prepared to go forward and expand higher education and all aspects of education at a faster rate than ever before.

Orders of the Day — OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE COLLEGES (RATE RELIEF)

8.27 p.m.

Mr. C. M. Woodhouse: The subject to which I wish to turn the House's attention is not unconnected with that which it has just debated. This is only natural, because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge(Sir H. Kerr), I represent a constituency in which there are a considerable number of well known educational institutions. I reopen the question of the rate relief of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges in a spirit of inquiry, not acrimony. I seek merely to learn what the Government's policy is on this problem, having so far succeeded only in learning what it is not.
When I spoke on this subject for the first time on 30th November, 1960, during the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill, I had a good deal

of support from hon. Members opposite, as I did in Committee. I do not think it unfair to say that at later stages I enjoyed the sympathy, to some extent, at any rate, of the hon. Member for Widnes(Mr. MacColl), who I see is to reply to the debate, and of the right hon. Member for Fulham(Mr. M. Stewart), now the Foreign Secretary. Perhaps I may add that I gave notice to the Foreign Secretary that I should be referring to him this evening, although I understand that more important matters keep him elsewhere.
If this subject were a recondite one, I should willingly have taken a place later in the queue, as you know, Mr. Speaker, but on offering to do so I found it impossible except at the risk of forfeiting my chance of raising the subject at all if today's plus tomorrow's sitting proved to be protracted. Having no means of knowing how long we might sit, and having no wish to add to any risk which there might be to the admirable Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) tomorrow, I had to retain my privilege of catching your eye at an early stage, Mr. Speaker. I can only apologise to other hon. Members who will have to await their turn to raise other matters.
This story is a long one, but fortunately I can cut it down to its bare essentials because undoubtedly it is very well known to the hon. Member the Minister who is to reply to the debate. It begins effectively with the Rating and Valuation Act, 1955, Section 8 of which had the effect of "freezing" the existing position of charities for rating purposes for three years, and had for the first time the effect of converting what used to be a discretionary relief into mandatory relief given in terms of a specific percentage.
The effect on Oxford was to render mandatory a level of rate relief for the university and colleges which, without going into arithmetic, imposed a fairly heavy burden on the City of Oxford, especially when one bears in mind that the university owns more than 5 per cent. of rateable property in the city and the colleges collectively own more than 9 per cent.
Section 8 of the Act was intended to be only temporary and before three


years ran out new legislation was intended. That legislation was based on the Report of the Committee on the Rating of Charities and Kindred Bodies(Cmd. 831/1959), usually called the Pritchard Report. That Report recommended, in brief, that charities should have mandatory relief, that university institutions should be included with other charities in this relief and that relief should be at the standard rate of 50 per cent. Clearly, the Pritchard Committee regarded all university institutions as inseparable and never even contemplated discrimination between university and colleges at either Oxford or Cambridge. I regard the Pritchard recommendation as wrong in substance, but at least it was formally right and consistent in applying the same considerations to both the university and the colleges. Therefore, I hoped that the Government would reverse the Pritchard Committee's recommendations on both points.
Unfortunately, the previous Government dissented only in part from the Pritchard Committee—and in parenthesis I should add that, although I was at one time a member of the previous Government, I was not a member when this error was committed; and though I subsequently became a member I am sure that it will be no secret, certainly to the Minister who has had access to the files, that I continued to dissent from the point and press for a change.
The mistake of separating the university and colleges and treating them in distinct and inconsistent ways was embodied in the 1961 Act in this form: that the university, like all others in the United Kingdom, should be deprived of rating relief but compensated for the extra cost by special grants from the University Grants Committee, whereas the colleges should receive 50 per cent. mandatory relief as recommended by the Pritchard Committee. In other words, the Pritchard recommendation was accepted for the colleges but rejected for the university; and all the subsequent trouble arose from that unfortunate discrimination. The formal embodiment of that discrimination is to be found in the First Schedule of the 1961 Act coupled with Section 11 of that Act. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are included in that Schedule. The colleges

of Oxford and Cambridge are excluded from it. That Schedule contains a list of those charities which are to be denied mandatory rate relief under Section 11 of the 1961 Act.
The one comment I will make out of the many I could make on the situation thus created is that there is no real difference of interest in this matter between town and gown in Oxford, and I am sure that the same is true in Cambridge. There is some ill feeling arising from the form of the rate relief but no general disposition among citizens of Oxford to penalise the colleges nor among the colleges to exploit their position to the disadvantage of general ratepayers. Everyone in Oxford who has carefully studied the problem—and I emphasise that qualifying phrase—whether town or gown, and whether Right or Left in politics, is in broad agreement that the present situation is anomalous, that the position of the colleges is unique and that whatever solution is to be found should not be found at the expense of Oxford ratepayers.
I could say a great deal about the anomalies which have been created, but I want to mention only one, which I know will strike a chord with the hon. Member for Widnes. This is that the grievance was accidentally compounded and reinforced by an event which fortuitously coincided with the sitting of the Pritchard Committee. While the Pritchard Committee was sitting, there was also in progress a number of appeals to the lands tribunal against the basis of valuation of the colleges and universities for rating purposes.
Valuation is quite a separate matter, and no Government can be held responsible for the outcome, but what matters so far as the present argument is concerned is that those Oxford colleges which were parties to the test cases were successful in their appeal. The result was that one of the factors in ascertaining their rateable value, namely, their rate of interest, was fixed at a new and lower figure, namely, 2½ per cent. instead of the 5 per cent. which is normally applied in the so-called "contractor's test", and this was done in part at least because these bodies were charities, which was also the reason why the colleges were to be given rate relief under the 1961 Act.
These points about valuation are distinct from arguments about rate relief, but they reinforce a natural sense of grievance, a sense of grievance moreover which has been recognised as legitimate outside Oxford and Cambridge, as well as in those two cities. It was recognised, for instance, by leading articles in both The Times and the Financial Times of 31st January, 1963. It has been freely recognised by representatives of the colleges themselves.
The hon. Member for Widnes argued on 19th December, 1963, that the colleges were in fact getting double relief because, they were first, having their valuations cut, and, secondly, getting 50 per cent. off the assessment based on that reduced valuation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East(Sir K. Joseph), who was then the Minister of Housing and Local Government, rebuked the hon. Gentleman on that occasion for speaking of "double relief", and he was technically right, but a valid point underlay the argument of the hon. Member for Widnes, and it was very skilfully restated in the same debate by his right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, now the Foreign Secretary, and then the shadow Minister of Housing and Local Government. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks will be found in column 1591 of HANSARD for 19th December, 1963. I will not read them out. I will only say that I wholly endorse them. As a Minister, I was unable to take part in that debate, but I listened to it with interest because I was not only still hoping to persuade my right hon. Friend to change the Government's policy, but I was wishing to pick up clues as to what a Labour Government would do in the same situation.
The debate on that occasion was on a Prayer moved by the hon. Member for Widnes on Statutory Instruments No.1361 of 1963, which had the effect of deleting from, and adding to, the First Schedule of the 1961 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge was also present on that occasion, and I recall him telling me that he had asked Mr. Speaker whether it would be in order to raise the question of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges which were not specified in the Order. He was told that it would not be in order. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, then the Opposition, made no such inquiry,

and therefore while my hon. Friend felt obliged by Mr. Speaker's Ruling to abstain from the debate, hon. Gentlemen opposite successfully evaded the Ruling, and for some reason got away with it. I do not blame them. I am glad they did so, because what they said needed saying, and this leads me to ask what they are going to do now that they have the power to do what they thought needed saying 18 months ago?
I want to clarify a little further what we were led to expect at that time or at any rate what we in Oxford thought that we were led to expect at that time, apparently wrongly, about the Labour Party's policy. After the debate on 19th December I persuaded my right hon. Friend the Minister to come to Oxford and explain his policy and subject himself to questions, which he courageously agreed to do. At the same time, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge was drafting a Private Member's Bill which would have had the effect that we intended by the simple method of adding the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Sir Samuel Storey): Order. We cannot discuss legislation in the course of this debate.

Mr. Woodhouse: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I shall make no further reference to the Bill in any case, as it was my hon. Friend's and not my own To return to the meeting to be addressed by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Housing—it was fixed for 1st February, 1964. No doubt by a coincidence, on 31st January, the day before the meeting, a report appeared prominently in the Oxford Mail which, as it is quite brief, I will read out, because it consisted in part of a letter which appeared to be a statement of policy on behalf of the Labour Party. It said:
Recently a delegation from Oxford City Labour Party met Mr. Michael Stewart, M.P., the Labour spokesman on housing and local government, to press for relief for Oxford ratepayers.
Mr. Williams, the General Secretary of the Labour Party, then wrote a letter the text of which is given in the report. It said:
The situation arising from the unduly low valuations and the operation of Section 11(of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1961), is clearly


anomalous and unreasonable in its effects upon the general rate revenues of Oxford. In our view it is desirable that early discussions should take place between the Treasury, the University Grants Committee and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government upon the possibility of special grants being made to Oxford and Cambridge colleges through the U.G.C. in lieu of rates. The only other step required would be the making of an order under Section 11(3) of the 1961 Act adding the names of those colleges to the list of excluded institutions in the First Schedule. Such action would give hope of an early easement of the burden thrown so suddenly upon the other ratepayers of Oxford and Cambridge"—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

8.49 p.m..

Mr. Woodhouse: I will continue reading the quotation, which has a few lines to run:
The only other step required would be the making of an order under Section 11(3) of the 1961 Act adding the names of those colleges to the list of excluded institutions in the First Schedule. Such action would give hope of an early easement of the burden thrown so suddenly upon the other ratepayers of Oxford and Cambridge. The effects of the new provisions for the rating of charities would be considered as part of the general review of rating we propose.
That is the end of Mr. Williams's letter.
Now I do the Oxford Labour Party the credit of refusing to believe that the object of publishing this letter at that moment was simply to embarrass me. I say that because I hold the persons concerned in respect, and I know that they are just as concerned as I am to get this matter amicably settled. I say it also because the publication of Mr. Williams's letter did not embarrass me. On the contrary, it appeared to state as Labour Party policy what had been my own policy for four years.
I am glad to see on the Government Front Bench the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who will, I am sure, recall the debate in which I first put forward these views in 1960. This letter helped my campaign by making it imperative that the then Minister, my right hon. Friend, should do something new and constructive about this problem, if I were to remain a Member of the Government, as for some gratifying but unaccountable reason, my colleagues seemed to wish me

to do. What the Minister then did was to state at the meeting on 1st February, according to a report from the Oxford Mail:
If the Colleges and the City Council came to an acceptable way out of the difficulty, he would certainly consider it.
Under judicious persuasion, my right hon. Friend later went further and, on 23rd April, he wrote a letter to the Town Clerk of Oxford, which I shall not read, because the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be familiar with it, in which the essential points were that he would sympathetically consider any jointly agreed scheme, provided that it did not impose any additional burden on the Exchequer; secondly that he would convene a meeting to discuss such a scheme, and thirdly that he would include Cambridge—both town and gown—in the invitation.
He wrote me a later letter—which I have not hitherto made public—on 17th June, 1964, in which he said that he saw no prima facie reason why, if such a scheme were put forward, eventual legislation should not eliminate Section 11 relief for the colleges. That represented, and still represents, the official attitude of the Conservative Party to this problem. The scheme which is referred to as a hypothetical one in the then Minister's letter was being actively discussed at the time with the chairman of the college bursars and the city treasury. Those discussions were not complete at the time of the General Election, but they were continuing in a friendly atmosphere. They are still continuing and I am informed that they are likely to reach fruition within the next few weeks.
The principle on which those discussions were taking place was novel. Without going into elaborate detail, the principle is that rates for the colleges should be assessed not on the value of their property, but on the number of the resident occupants of the property, so I shall refer to it as the "capitation scheme", which is the name by which it is generally known in Oxford. These discussions naturally took a long time for a variety of reasons. I think, without in any way imputing dishonourable motives to anyone, that one of the reasons that they took a long time was, in part, that the Labour councillors on the Oxford City Council naturally supposed, on the basis


of Mr. Williams' letter which I have read out, that they had only to wait for a Labour Government in order to get what would be a preferable solution from the city's point of view—namely, the solution of an Exchequer subsidy for the college rates—instead of the less preferable, but not necessarily unacceptable, solution of the capitation scheme.
It was their belief—I shared it, but I wanted to make sure—that Mr. Williams's letter could be interpreted only as an undertaking in that sense. I sought to confirm it in two ways. First of all, I arranged, through the chairman of my association, that a letter should be published in the Oxford Mail asking whether Mr. Williams's letter constituted a firm commitment. The answer came very shortly from the agent of the Oxford City Labour Party—again, I need not read it out—saying, I think beyond any doubt, that the next Labour Government had been committed to initiate early discussions between the parties mentioned in Mr. Williams's letter on the scheme mentioned in Mr. Williams's letter.
I also took one other step to confirm my interpretation of what Mr. Williams's letter meant. The House will remember that the Oxford Mail report of 31st January referred to the right hon. Member for Fulham, as having been approached by the Oxford City Labour Party. I therefore approached him myself to ask whether Mr. William's letter could be rightly interpreted as a statement of Labour Party policy if a Labour Government came to office. He replied, "Yes".
At this distance of time I cannot guarantee the fullest verbal accuracy in quoting his words, but I have no doubt about their sense. He said, additionally, "We do not consider that any question of academic freedom is involved." Everyone who is familiar with the problem will appreciate that those words can be interpreted only as referring to what I have called the subsidy scheme. So this reply of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory to me and I was highly optimistic over the next few months. I sought to avoid discussion of the matter during the General Election for fear of upsetting the delicate and highly technical negotiations so much in the interests of everyone in Oxford. I felt confident that there was a good chance that we should get either

the Exchequer subsidy solution under a Labour Government or the capitation solution under a Conservative Government.
That was the position up to October. Then came the General Election. For some weeks after that I simply assumed that discussions were going on between the parties mentioned in Mr. Williams's letter. I heard nothing about them, nor did the Chairman of Bursars of the Oxford Colleges, nor the Town Clerk. I began to put down Parliamentary Questions to find out how things were going. It would be tedious to recite how those Questions were treated. Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer were transferred to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, whose replies referred me to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and so on. Two things became clear. One was that no discussions of the kind we thought that we had been promised had begun at all. The other was that the new Minister of Housing and Local Government did not regard himself as committed to any particular course at all, least of all to the course to which we had sincerely thought his party was committed.
The hon. Gentleman will agree that this became clear from the Answers to two Parliamentary Questions which I put down to the Minister on 2nd February. I therefore began to feel that the Labour Party in Oxford must be as disturbed as I was about what was happening, since this is a matter of constituency and not of party interest. So I drew local attention to the matter in a letter to the Oxford Mail, expecting to receive the warmest support of the local Labour Party. Again, it would be tedious to go through the ensuing correspondence letter by letter. The upshot was that the Labour representatives in Oxford repudiated the idea that there had ever been any commitment, in the sense which appeared to have been indicated by the crucial phrase about early discussion between the Treasury, the University Grants Committee and the Minister of Housing and Local Government, on the possibility of a special grant being made to the Oxford and Cambridge colleges through the U.G.C. in lieu of rates.
This rebuttal of what I thought had been a clear undertaking, and what I


think the right hon. Member for Fulham—the present Foreign Secretary—and the Labour Party agent in Oxford also thought had been a clear undertaking caused me great surprise. I regret to say that the rebuttal was accompanied by personal sneers and insinuations directed at myself by the Labour candidate at the last General Election and one of the Labour candidates at the forthcoming municipal elections. I pass over these sneers, I do not think that serious argument is advanced by bad manners, and this is a serious argument. The rebuttal of what I thought had been a clear and unequivocal promise I am obliged to accept, though doing so with great surprise because, as I have said, I hold members of the Labour Party in Oxford in respect as men of their word.
The question is, what is to be done next? That is a question which only the Minister can finally answer. There are various possibilities in front of him. The fi,rst is to do nothing at all, but I think it is clear, from the answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given to my questions, that that at least is not what he intends to do. The second possibility is to adopt what I have called the Exchequer subsidy scheme which I have always advocated. It is true that I have now accepted, though with surprise, that the Labour Party never intended to commit itself to this solution or even to the discussion of it. But that does not preclude the Minister from now adopting it if, on mature consideration, he wishes to, as I hope he will.
The third possibility is to adopt the capitation scheme if and when it is submitted to him by the colleges and the city jointly, as I am confident that it is likely to be in due course, perhaps before long. On that scheme the Minister has so far shown himself more cautious than his predecessor, who said that he would consider it sympathetically provided that there was no additional burden on the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Housing and Local Government said on 2nd February:
I will, of course, take account of any proposals that are put to me."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 870.
Taking account is a good deal less forthcoming than considering sympathetically.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Is it?

Mr. Woodhouse: It sounds like that to me. I should like the Minister at least to go so far as to restore on this point the position which was taken by his predecessor, a position from which he seems to have retreated.
The fourth and final possibility is that there is some alternative, a new solution of the Minister's own. If he has that in mind I hope that he may now take the opportunity of disclosing something about it. I am sure that he will have understood the points of the questions which I have put to him in a most abbreviated form. I might have elaborated upon them at greater length, but I assume that he knows all about the matter and I also have in mind the fact that other hon. Members will probably wish to speak on the subject.
I am sure that, in replying to these questions, the Minister will do so with the seriousness they deserve and will not treat the matter in the way it has recently been treated by a small but unfortunately not insignificant minority of the Labour Party in Oxford.

8.58 p.m.

Sir Hamilton Kerr: I want briefly, on behalf of the City of Cambridge, to reinforce the points so admirably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) and, in so doing, I shall try to maintain the tone he set which was in a spirit of inquiry and not of acrimony. I will not repeat the points so clearly made on the events leading up to the present discussion. I will only remind hon. Members that in February of last year, pursuing the initiative taken by my hon. Friend, I introduced a Private Member's Bill, the purpose of which was to include the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge in the First Schedule of the 1961 Act.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss legislation during this debate.

Sir H. Kerr: I wished only to mention that in passing. Unfortunately, the Bill was dropped. Friday after Friday there were cries of "Object", "Object". I withdrew the Bill on the understanding that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East(Sir K. Joseph),


the Minister at the time, would initiate discussions between the college bursars and the respective city authorities of Oxford and Cambridge. When that was done I, like my hon. Friend, was overwhelmed with acrimonious abuse. I was told that my reputation was soiled, that I had sold out the city, and at one point I almost felt that I was going to be burned before the eyes of the city council in the market place before the Guildhall.
Five months have passed in which we were promised action, and we anxiously await a decision by the Minister. Will he accept a decision, firstly reached in conversation between the college bursars and the city authorities, or will he be willing to impose a new solution on his own? I must warn the Minister that when he comes to Cambridge very shortly to talk to the city council he will face a certain feeling from the colleges. An article he wrote in January of last year on "Oxbridge" in which he described both of these places as producing an atmosphere of arrogance, mediocrity and exclusiveness, caused great annoyance in the University, likewise his remark that the autonomy of the colleges was no longer justified. Many of us feel that at both of these great centres of learning, the autonomy of the colleges makes one of the distinctive successes of the educational system.
If I may say so as a former member of Balliol, many of us former members have recently dug deep into our bank accounts to find£1 million for the reconstruction scheme. A college is a unit of loyalty and makes an appeal which a far greater and amorphous mass could never produce. Therefore, the Minister might well consider whether his own college, New College, of which he is a distinguished member could maintain its great tradition of saintly men and scholars if it were merged, and lost its identity.
It is vitally important in these two great centres of learning that a good feeling should exist between town and gown. Fortunately, the days have long passed when violent riots took place, when the streets sounded with pattering feet and scuffles that resulted in cracked heads. But the question of college rating does maintain bad feeling. Surely, both university and city are dependent on each

other as inseparably as Siamese twins. The university is the greatest employer in Cambridge—it has been calculated that, together with the teaching faculty and adding the college servants and others, about 10,000 people are involved. In turn, the city provides the university with extra accommodation and supplies. It is tragic, at a time when education is expanding rapidly, that any links with had feeling should be retained.
I therefore appeal to the Minister. I myself am not standing at the next election. I would be grateful if he could find a right and just solution to make a happy atmosphere in our two greatest centres of learning. If he can produce a just and equitable answer we, on this side, will be more than satisfied but, if he cannot, I must warn him that we shall feel absolutely obliged by every means at our disposal, by Parliamentary Questions and by Private Members' Bills, to try to get a just solution, and to keep this problem before hon. Members.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Gregory: I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford(Mr. Woodhouse). It has only been on the rare occasion that I have heard him speak on these matters—I know that this is because I came to the House only in October—but I know that he has a very long-standing reputation as an advocate for his constituency and the university town. I think that the same goes for the hon. Member for Cambridge(Sir H. Kerr). He, too, represents a university town, and a great one.

Sir H. Kerr: A city.

Mr. Arnold Gregory: I am sorry—a university constituency. I also recall that he once had connections with Lancashire, which is not so far from where I lived, or from the constituency I now represent.
I noticed also that there was a standing front opposite during the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford—indeed, the entire occupation of the benches opposite was shared between Oxford and Cambridge. I recall the speech made by the hon. Member for Cambridge on 25th February, 1964, when he made extremely strong advocacy for his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, saying that his hon.


Friend should have been introducing the Bill he was seeking to introduce that day. He said that:
Equipped with the ingenuity obtained as a leader of the Greek guerillas in the last war, and fortified with the reputation of a double first, he would have deployed a most formidable argument."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 241.]
It was extremely kind of the hon. Gentleman to speak so highly of his hon. Friend's ability to put the case before the House.
I did not go to Oxford or Cambridge. My background is one of Manchester and Salford Schools, with later connections with the redbrick university in Manchester. What is perfectly clear is that many of my colleagues who went to Manchester University to struggle through to academic achievements in very difficult days would complain today that the welcome enlargement of the university in the centre of the city on the most valuable land imposes a great burden upon its own citizens.

Mr. Woodhouse: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I am sure that he and the Minister will agree that in the case of Manchester University, for which I have the greatest respect, as well as of all the other universities in the United Kingdom, of two of which I have the honour to be a member of the governing body, there is this essential difference. In the case of all these other universities, unlike Oxford and Cambridge, a full rate is paid on behalf of the whole complex of the university institution. They are compensated by the University Grants Committee for the excessive rate demand on them. The citizens of Manchester lose nothing in rateable value as a result of the University being in their midst. The citizens of Oxford and Cambridge lose rateable value as a result, not of the universities being in their midst, but of the colleges being in their midst. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate this distinction.

Mr. Gregory: Indeed I do. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Even the weakness of my case rather strengthens the backing I give him with regard to Oxford and Cambridge.

Mr. Woodhouse: I am grateful.

Mr. Gregory: My point was that the enlargement and development of Manchester's own university facilities are at the expense of land previously occupied by higher rateably valued property. This trend will grow. This is a matter of concern in Manchester, as it must be in any city which provides the facility of higher education to the rest of the people.
My major point is that in a city such as Oxford or Cambridge there is a tremendous burden by virtue of a great amount of its facilities being directed towards university education. The whole nation stands in awe and admiration of what has happened at Oxford and Cambridge and the great contribution they make to our life. We are obliged to take away some of the burden by granting higher relief or concessions in some way, sometimes at the expense of the citizens of the city.
This point is made on page 20 of the Pritchard Report, to which the hon. Member for Oxford referred. I refer the House to this passage:
Part III. Recommendations for the future.
The general case for and against assistance by local authorities.
The rating system today provides a practical basis for local taxation. It has evolved, in over three hundred and fifty years, from something akin to an income tax levied to relieve the poor into a tax on the occupation of land levied to pay for a wide range of social and environmental services other than the relief of the poor.
Today these local authorities are struggling with this great job of providing the type of services which we regard as essential in the twentieth century. These great university cities are making great contributions to culture, science and art. The residents of these cities provide a tremendous amount of money for the conduct of these affairs. Those residents see visitors from Stockport, Manchester and many other parts of the country going to Oxford and Cambridge as students and taking full advantage of the social services provided, at the expense of the local residents.
It is true to say, and I have noticed this in the general comments of officers of the city of Oxford, that the complaint is that the citizens of Oxford carry a tremendous burden in providing these facilities by way of the upkeep of roads and buildings and services for visitors to the city, however welcome those may be


and however great the contribution of the university to the arts, science and literature. The whole point is that the burden is at the expense of the ratepayers and that it is the outcome of a tremendously firm tradition.
The hon. Member for Cambridge is a far greater expert than I am on that great city, but I understand that the coming of the university to Cambridge was an accident in the first place. It was not a matter of calculation by the citizens of Cambridge. It came upon them and emerged with the development of our country, and though on this side of the House some of us might quibble about the people who from the beginning were able to take advantage of the facilities provided there, it is a fact that the colleges are now expanding and embracing more and more of the young people of this country to equip them with the knowledge of science and the arts which is so essential to the progress of our country in a modern age.
I looked up the handbook of the City of Cambridge. I always find the official handbooks of cities extremely valuable. They can be used for pleading for better roads and railways and—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The Minister has no responsibility for official handbooks.

Mr. Gregory: I was going to quote from the handbook because it was relevant to the point which I was about to make. It reinforces my argument in the case of Cambridge that the university was imposed upon the city and that today the burden is carried by the citizens. There was a mound known as Castle Hill in Cambridge at the time of the Norman Conquest where William placed his keep when he made Cambridge the base for his campaign.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with administration policy based on the Supply being discussed today.

Mr. Gregory: I am sorry, but I was trying to make the point that it was not until 200 years later that, after the burgesses had been established in the running of the town and providing essential services for the people, the university was established in Cam-

bridge. This bears witness to the case put by the people of Cambridge that today they are bearing this tremendous burden. I am sure that those who visit Cambridge and use the facilities there would concede that these have been provided at the expense of the residents of the town. It should also be taken into consideration that in the matter of planning there is evidence of irreconcilability between the position of the university authorities who are most anxious to make use of modern structural techniques to build the colleges and the question of at the same time dovetailing this kind of development with what goes on in the city. These things are intertwined in a gradual developing process, seeing that we have a university town providing the facilities we want while at the same time not leaving the cities themselves behind in their social services.
The case which both Oxford and Cambridge make today has been strongly reinforced by the hon. Member for Oxford and the correspondence and communication he told us about, which took place before the election, during the election and since. Although the hon. Gentleman complains about a rift in relationships, I am sure that all hon. Members will back the efforts of the hon. Gentleman and of the Oxford Labour Party in realising their common aims. I appeal to the Minister so to arrange the rating system as to ease the burden on the ratepayer while, at the same time, making it possible for us to achieve the great ideals we have in science, literature and modern studies.

9.12 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I express the great regret of my right hon. Friend the Minister that he cannot be here. As the hon. Member for Oxford(Mr. Woodhouse) knows, the time-table has gone a little askew and my right hon. Friend's arrangements were such that it became difficult for him to be present, although he would have liked to have done so because of the points which have been made involving him and what he said in question and answer on this subject.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is not able to be


here. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that he and my right hon. Friend had discussions last Session about this problem, and on one occasion my right hon. Friend made a speech about it. I was present at the discussions between representatives of the Oxford Labour Party and my right hon. Friend and I think that I know what happened then.

Mr. Woodhouse: For the sake of the record, the hon. Gentleman will agree that he was not present at the discussions between the present Foreign Secretary and myself. I have endeavoured to give the gist of what was then said but, of course, I take sole responsibility for that myself.

Mr. MacColl: My fairly long associations with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have always been a source of great inspiration and joy to me, and I am only sorry that on that occasion I missed the great experience which he had of discussing these interesting matters with the hon. Gentleman. I was not present and, for that reason, did not know what happened, but, in general, I have no doubt at all about the views on this matter of both my right hon. Friends, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Foreign Secretary.
As the hon. Gentleman said, my own views were expressed in the debate on the Prayer. I did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was rebuking me or admiring me for having made a satisfactory speech.

Mr. Woodhouse: Admiring.

Mr. MacColl: When the hon. Gentleman has been in Opposition for as long as I was, he will learn about these little "wrinkles" for getting round Prayers. I do not know that I am satisfied now with all the things I took that opportunity to put on the record, but I do not run away at all from what I said about this problem and the difficulties which it raises.
Again, I do not want to rub in a party political point but this is a case where a very difficult situation has been inherited. The hon. Member for Oxford was quite clear in saying that both within and without the last Government he did his best to avoid this situation arising. Unfortunately, it did arise and therefore we must find a way of getting round it—a way that will not create as many

difficulties as it may solve. That is the problem which faces us.
The hon. Member rather gave the impression that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East(Sir K. Joseph) was on the verge of coming to a solution of the problem when an unkind electorate interrupted his tenure of office. I think that was to overstate the case. I understood from what he said that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he would approve any just scheme which was worked out by the local authority and the colleges, provided that it did not impose any burden on the Exchequer. Of course, that was a very big proviso.

Mr. Woodhouse: For the accuracy of the record of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East(Sir K. Joseph) said, I should quote his letter, which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt find in his own files. It stated that
…the Minister…would consider sympathetically any jointly agreed scheme which the Colleges and City put forward as an alternative basis of assessment, provided of course that any such scheme did not increase either directly or indirectly the present share of the cost of College rates borne by the Exchequer.
I would only add that the scheme now under discussion between the Chairman of the College Bursars and the City Treasurer does, in my understanding fulfil that condition. It has not, of course, yet reached a state of final agreement between the two parties concerned in Oxford, but I understand that there is a good chance of an agreement which will not impose any additional burden on the Exchequer. The commitment by my right hon. Friend was sympathetically to consider any such scheme if it were eventually put before him.

Mr. MacColl: I do not have the correspondence because, as the hon. Member for Oxford is no doubt aware, the files of an old Administration which reach a new Administration are somewhat drastically edited.

Mr. Woodhouse: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows some wrinkles for getting round that.

Mr. MacColl: I have found that it is child's play to get round the orders of the House of Commons compared with


getting round the inscrutable rules of the Civil Service. I have not succeeded in doing that. But, of course, I accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, when these proposals are put to him, will consider them with very great sympathy and do all he can to reach a result.
Perhaps I may describe some of the difficulties about this. I said that my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary had stated that we were anxious to reach any solution which would result in the colleges paying a higher share of the rates but that we both took the view that we were not in favour of taxing higher education and, therefore, not in favour of a solution which would merely take the form of removing the 50 per cent. mandatory relief from the rates. We said that all along.
Then there was the question of whether or not it was possible to have an Exchequer grant or to merge the colleges into the U.G.C. grant so that they would automatically have the same advantages as the university and the same advantages as, for example, the University of Manchester has. That is the first particular difficulty which has to be overcome.
The second difficulty is the question of possible repercussions on other educational bodies. If, for example, the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge were to have part of their rates paid by the Exchequer, this would not go down very well with those local authorities who now suffer from the fact that such diverse educational institutions as the public schools and the local authority approved schools pay low rates.

Mr. Woodhouse: 1 am sorry to interrupt again, but these are important matters. As the hon. Gentleman has not had access to the past files, he is probably not aware that this is a point on which there has already been a good deal of argument with his right hon. Friend's predecessor and at one stage I put this question to him. In the case of public schools or other educational charities which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, to what institution already listed in the First Schedule to the 1961 Act do any of these educational authorities bear the same inextricable financial relationship which the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge

bear to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge? I think that the answer must be none.

Mr. MacColl: I should correct myself. What I meant if I said that they were derated was that they would get the mandatory 50 per cent. rating.
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman and I do not want to make the case too strong. However, there is the point that the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge are not directly subject to Government grant. They enjoy endowments, as do the public schools. I do not think that there are many endowments attached to local authority approved schools; but in their general administration and in reliance on fees and endowments, public schools are similar to the colleges. I do not want to make that too strong a case, because I do not want to put ideas into the heads of people who may take up these points in the negotiation. But they clearly exist. This is therefore something which must be approached fairly delicately and it would not be desirable to get involved in acrimonious disputes which might prevent schemes from going through, or from going through amicably.
The other point which I want to make before dealing with what can be done is a matter of fact. This is not a fact to which I attach too much importance, but the amount involved is not very great. Although Cambridge does not get a rate deficiency grant, the city is partly protected by the rate-deficiency grant payable to the county, and the amount lost by the city of Cambridge is very small, less than ld. rate—I believe that it is about a ¾d. rate. The figure for Oxford is about 2d. Therefore, I do not want the hon. Gentleman to overstate the case by implying that this is a crippling burden, but I agree that it is an irritating burden and that, quite understandably, the local authorities of Oxford and Cambridge do not like it.
I want to say something about my right hon. Friend. I was a little sorry that the hon. Gentleman implied that he had gone back on what had been said. I want to remind the House of what my right hon. Friend said on 2nd February. It was
It is complex and I cannot give a date for announcing a decision.


which any Minister who has not been long in office could repeat about many things. My right hon. Friend went on:
I will, of course, take account of any proposals that are put to me, but cannot commit myself at this stage to any particular line of approach
As we know that proposals are likely to be put to my right hon. Friend, that was not an unreasonable attitude to adopt. Then the hon. Gentleman, referring to the remarks made by the general secretary of the Oxford Labour Party, said:
May I ask how long a delay he"—
that is, my right hon. Friend—
considers compatible with the term "early'?".
My right hon. Friend said:
I think that I gave an assurance 30 years ago, when leading the Labour councillors on the Oxford City Council, that this grievous burden should be considered. The longer we wait the more difficult it becomes. All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well how delicate is this matter.
He does.
Consultations are taking place. If I may say so, I have, in memory, some sympathy with the ratepayers, but we have to face facts.

Mr. Woodhouse: Could the hon. Gentleman say between whom the consultations are taking place? I have tabled quite a number of Questions naming the parties. The letter from the national agent of the Labour Party appeared to indicate that consultations would take place. If the consultations are taking place between just those parties, it puzzles me that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister has never said so in so many words.

Mr. MacColl: I do not quite follow what the hon. Gentleman is adding to what he has said. The undertaking was—and here I am quoting from the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question which summarised what the general secretary of the Oxford Labour Party said—that
under a Labour Government there would be early discussions with a view to finding a solution to the problem on precisely the lines set out in question No. 8?".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 870.]
Question No. 8 referred to the possibility of special grants being made to the Oxford and Cambridge colleges through the U.G.C. in lieu of rates.
I should have thought that it was abundantly clear from that that my right hon. Friend had left nothing obscure. The consultations were taking place about the possibility of special grants and I should have thought that it was plain that my right hon. Friend was consulting the people responsible for any decision which would enable grants to be made. I should have thought that that included the Treasury, the U.G.C. and probably the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Woodhouse: Those were the parties named in the letter from the national agent of the Labour Party. I am only puzzled that we have not been told that these are the parties between whom consultations have been taking place. I am gratified that they have been taking place.

Mr. MacColl: That I think is a reasonable interpretation of what my right hon. Friend said. I am zealous in defending my right hon. Friend's reputation. He is not normally accused of not being forthright in his views and I think he made them reasonably clear in his Answer.
The position is not subject to great obscurity or confusion. As I say, this is a difficult problem because it involves other possible repercussions of any step forward in this way. Clearly, it involves discussions with the Treasury about whether it is prepared, and in what circumstances it would be prepared, to agree to a grant of this sort being made. The hon. Gentleman, having wrestled with this problem in connection with his own college, does not need to be told how difficult it is to reach agreement on these matters.
My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has been kind enough to be here throughout the debate. He has listened to all that has been said. I am very glad that he has been here because it means that he will have heard the strength of opinion expressed about this matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister made it quite clear that he would like to do something about this. As someone with very long and honourable connections with Oxford, both the city and the university, it is something in which he is particularly interested; and in my own humble and ineffective way I am anxious to do anything I can. I do not want to go back on anything I said about


this before the General Election. It is not a question of an embarrassing pledge which we want to forget. It is something of which we are aware and on which we want to do all we can. But we have to be honest with the House and say we are not yet in a position to produce a satisfactory solution of the complex difficulties that we have inherited from the 1961 Act and its implications.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH COURT OF APPEAL

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I should like to take this opportunity of raising in this House the subject of the possibility of setting up a supreme court for the Commonwealth. I am the first to realise that the subject of a Commonwealth court is one for the idealist and I appreciate that by raising it I must therefore risk, as anyone else would have to risk, the danger of being labelled as an idealist. It is a risk I am perfectly well content to take. Indeed, the older I get the more idealistic I think I become—at least I hope I do. I was delighted in February of last year when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in a debate on the Commonwealth in this House spoke of the possibility of setting up a Commonwealth court. He thought it an idea which would have great value to the Commonwealth and if I may say so with respect I entirely agree with him.
Five years ago at a conference of the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth, Senator Coovay of Ceylon suggested the possibility of setting up a Commonwealth court. He, too, thought it was a good idea and suggested that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be re-formed and reconstituted as a Commonwealth court. He saw as a very practical possibility the judges of the Judicial Committee going on circuit to the Commonwealth in order to hear appeals, so enlarging and revising the powers and the jurisdiction of that court as to build upon it a Commonwealth court. In the same year, 1960, the noble Lord, Lord Denning, in another place during a debate on his hopes of treating a Commonwealth court saw no reason why the judges who would form the judiciary of a Commonwealth court

should not go on circuit, as Senator Coovay had suggested. The noble Lord asked why should not the Judicial Committee go on circuit; and he reminded the other place that not many years ago the judges of England rode from one assize town to another and no doubt took no longer to reach their destinations than it would take today to fly to the remote ends of the earth.
This year in Sydney there is to be a Commonwealth Law Conference and one of the subjects that is likely to be discussed at that conference is the possibility of creating a Commonwealth court. Therefore, it seems to me appropriate to raise this question now so that right hon. and hon. Members of this House should have an opportunity of taking a careful look at the realities of the prospect of creating a Commonwealth court.
The purpose of a Commonwealth court is simple. I like to think that it is a purpose with which most, if not all, right hon. and hon. Members of the House agree, and to which they give enthusiastic support. It is simply to preserve and to develop the Commonwealth. It is true that trade is vital to the Commonwealth, and so is economic and technical aid, but the truth of the matter is that if we are going to be realistic, as I hope we are, commerce and trade by themselves are frail bonds which are exposed always to the perils of outside competition.
We have in this country and in our Commonwealth, this Commonwealth which has been created over the years, a bond far stronger, far more substantial, and far more attractive and certain. We have the bond of the rule of law. This is something which we cannot, or should not, undervalue. I think that it is unrivalled. I believe that it is this bond, this rule of law, this very source of democracy which refreshes our philosophy, which enables us to keep our democracy in its present state. It is something which we value, and which is respected throughout the Commonwealth, if not throughout the world.
I appreciate, as everyone does, that politics is the science of the possible, and though it may be said that I speak with the language of the idealist, I realise, as anyone would do on looking at the problem, the formidable difficulties of


creating a Commonwealth court. I am convinced that if we are to create such a court we must create it by careful and fairly easy stages.
The first thing that we must do—and I believe that this is a demand which is growing in the Commonwealth itself, and a demand to which we must accede when its strength becomes apparent, as I believe it is becoming apparent—is to create a supreme court of the Commonwealth to which all Members of the Commonwealth who voluntarily submit to its jurisdiction will go as the final court of appeal. I emphasise the comprehensiveness of this court. It must deal with all countries, and that includes ourselves.
I should like to think that we could build such a court upon the foundation that we have in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council but, trying to be realistic, I do not think that we can do that. The Judicial Committee sits in London. It always has. It sits here more for convenience than for any other reason. It is a court which has a relationship with colonial practice going back to the days of the Restoration. It was given statutory blessing in the 19th century by the Privy Council Acts, and, whether we like it or not, I think we have to acknowledge that to the Commonwealth, and certainly to the newly created independent countries of the Commonwealth, it tends to smack of colonial practice.
Many countries find it incompatible with their sovereignty. So one sees, as we have seen, countries like India, Pakistan, Canada, Nigeria, Ghana and Cyprus all abolishing the right of appeal to the judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
But we should not be too depressed or disheartened by that, because other countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon, Trinidad and Jamaica still value and retain the right to go to the Judicial Committee. Their faith in the benefits that they get from that right of appeal is perhaps one of the strongest and most encouraging arguments for the setting up of a Commonwealth court.
The judges who would man such a court would have to be drawn from members of the judiciary in the Commonwealth. They would have to be prepared to go on circuit. We should be frank and

not mealy-mouthed about this. It might be said that we shall not get the necessary quality of judge if we choose our judiciary from the various Commonwealth countries. I wholly and vehemently disagree with that view. There are good judges and bad judges in every country.
Anyone who has been to Nigeria and argued in the Court of Appeal in Lagos a pretty substantial and complicated point of law, and has heard the way in which that court has dealt with the various points, and the decision that it has given at the end of the case, will be very impressed by the quality of the judiciary in such a country. There is no substance in the objection which is sometimes put forward that we shall not be able to get either the numbers or the quality of judges from the Commonwealth.
The idea of setting up a Commonwealth court is not new. I submit that a very good model for such a court is already in operation, in East Africa—the East African Court of Appeal. I know that at the moment not many countries submit to its jurisdiction. It is limited, in the sense that it deals with a region and is not intended to take in more than that region. But reading through the reported cases of that court we see that its jurisdiction appears to be almost unlimited. I should have thought that there one has a court which is not only an example of the need for a Supreme Court of Appeal for a certain region but which also illustrates what I am attempting to say, namely, that not only is there a need but that that need can be satisfied, for the whole of the Commonwealth, by such a court.
The jurisdiction would be one to which individual countries would have to submit voluntarily. We must face the fact that not all Commonwealth countries would be prepared, or would necessarily want, at first, to submit to that jurisdiction. What I should like to see is a start made, so that the court could extend its area and, eventually, its jurisdiction. It might be objected, and indeed, I have heard it said—as I have no doubt many other hon. Members have heard it said—that one of the difficulties in setting up a Commonwealth court is that it would have to deal with diverse countries and diverse systems of law. In answer to that, if it be put forward as a serious objection, I would say that the House of Lords, to my knowledge, has


never had very much difficulty in dealing with the different case law of England and Scotland. Indeed, with a proper choice of judiciary to man the Commonwealth court, I can see no real difficulties for such a court dealing with Roman-Dutch law as well as Commonwealth law—

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: As the Judicial Committee now does.

Mr. Gardner: As the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council now does, as my right hon. and learned Friend says. One does not notice any great difficulty, indeed any difficulty at all, in this aspect of a court which deals with Commonwealth affairs.
If we submitted to the jurisdiction of a Commonwealth court, we should have to do so, obviously, on an equal footing with all the others who submitted to the jurisdiction. There can be no distinction between one country and another. We have to face the fact that the appellant jurisdiction of the House of Lords itself would ultimately, if not immediately, have to be replaced by the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth court. I think that this is the logic of the situation, although some of us might think that it was a painful exchange. I have no doubt that it would have such benefits that they would wholly outweigh any arguments which might be adduced in favour of this country standing aside from a Commonwealth court, merely as an observer watching the benefits flow to the other member countries of the Commonwealth.
The real difficulty about a Commonwealth court is to decide what its jurisdiction would be. I see here a formidable difficulty. I do not think that it is an obstacle which we could not overcome. I believe that we could overcome it, but we should have to decide just what this court would do. I think that the first duty of the court would be to deal with the laws of the several countries which came to the court for decisions. Eventually, a Commonwealth court should have the ambition—large though it would be, but also necessary—of ensuring the fulfilment of some kind of charter, perhaps a British Commonwealth Bill of Human Rights. Eventually—and this may be years ahead, but it is an ambition which we can at least

have and hope to fulfil, however difficult it may be to achieve—I see no reason why, if we had such a Bill of Human Rights, it should not be possible to say that those who would not submit to such a Bill of Rights should be severely censured and, if necessary, expelled.
I know that this is difficult and I know that it may sound extreme, but one day we have to wake up; one day the problem of political imprisonment without trial in the Commonwealth has to be faced. We cannot have a sore on a body politic like political imprisonment without trial and expect that body to be healthy. Something has to be done about it. Somehow we have to get a solution. Some day it must come, be it years ahead. Political prisoners must be freed in all the countries belonging to the Commonwealth. If I am accused of appearing to be idealistic when I say this, then I expose myself to the risk and say it again.
I believe that the solution for this problem would be to issue in the Commonwealth a writ of habeas corpus overriding local legislation and issuing through a supreme court of the Commonwealth. It is no use for people to talk about a world habeas corpus to overcome the wretchedness of the political prisoner. Some people do and no doubt many of us have read treatises and books arguing that we ought to rely on the United Nations to produce such a writ, or some such remedy. We cannot expect that in the present, or indeed in the immediate future.
I believe that we have a practical solution here which could be achieved in the years to come. I ask the Minister—I do not expect more; one would be unreasonable to expect more—whether he can say something which can give some encouragement about a start on a new consideration of the possibility of setting up a Commonwealth court. I believe that the rule of law is a thread which, more certainly than any other, can become unbreakable and bind together, in a way in which nothing else can, the Commonwealth in which we all have, I hope and believe, a deep and abiding interest.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

9.59 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I am very glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay(Mr. Gardner) has taken the occasion to commend to the House the proposal for a Commonwealth court of appeal. My hon. and learned Friend and I, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby(Mr. Graham Page), are old and consistent advocates for a Commonwealth court of appeal, whatever the Government for the time being may be. For myself, it is something which has engaged both my attention and my affection from two points of view. First, because I am, or seek to be, a friend to the Commonwealth, and secondly, because I am, or seek to be, a friend to the rule of law, and I believe that a Commonwealth court of appeal can serve the interests of both.
Three questions present themselves to us in the consideration of this important matter of a Commonwealth court of appeal. First, is some form of Commonwealth jurisdiction appropriate for appelling purposes? Secondly, if so, can the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council continue to provide it? Thirdly, if the answer to the second question is "Not"—as my hon. and learned Friend suggested—and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cannot supply that need in the contemporary Commonwealth, can we devise some new form of court which will meet contemporary needs? I will briefly address my remarks to those three questions.
On the first—is some form of Commonwealth court with appellate jurisdiction appropriate?—I believe that if the Commonwealth in its new form is to be a reality and a power for good in the world to the utmost of its potential, then it needs links more formal and fundamental than the links of tradition and sentiment, valuable as those undoubtedly are. And these further links can take the form of economic, cultural and social links and the like; and I have from time to time addressed myself to those various possibilities in the House.
In particular, I have spoken of the possibility of strengthened economic links, although tonight we are concerned with what I believe to be an equally valuable form of additional link: the legal link which has been suggested by my hon.

and learned Friend. I believe with him that a legal link is both appropriate and helpful to the Commonwealth ideal. I further believe that form and expression should be given to our common allegiance to the English common law, which is a common factor for the great bulk of the Commonwealth. Therefore, the answer to the first question is "Yes. It is appropriate that we should have some form of Commonwealth court of appeal to suit the needs of the contemporary Commonwealth".
I come to the second question. Is it possible that that need can be filled by our existing practice in the appellate jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? The answer to that question must, I say with some regret, be "No". I say "with some regret" because I have a great respect for it, not only or mainly because I happen to be a Privy Councillor, although being one does not give one any right to sit in the Judicial Committee. My respect derives from quite a different capacity; from appearing before the Judicial Committee in my forensic capacity as a Queen's Councillor.
These are matters of fact, and I mention them only to display that anybody with experience of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—and any hon. Member in the House can only have experience of it in one of two ways; either as an advocate appearing before it or as a lay person who is concerned with it, and I have had some experience in the former context—is bound to have a considerable admiration and respect for the way in which the Judicial Committee does its work.
I mention that for this reason. As I am bound to say that the answer to the question is "No", I want to make it clear that that does not convey any conceivable disrespect on my part to the Judicial Committee. The fact is, however, that the forms and practices of the Judicial Committee, as my hon. and learned Friend indicated, are not really suited to the new Commonwealth which we now have in the second half of the twentieth century.
There are, to put it shortly, two main difficulties. The first is that the procedure of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, although it is in substance


judicial, in form is imperfectly served because the judgments or decisions of the Judicial Committee do not take the form of a judgment in a court of law but of opinions for the guidance of Her Majesty, which are promulgated by Order in Council. The second is the cognate difficulty that the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee on a Commonwealth matter has its origin in colonial practice and jurisdiction. That being so, it is obviously—again as my hon. and learned Friend properly said—not welcome in that sense to the more newly independent members of the Commonwealth.
I think that the fact that we need a new initiative and a new court is clear, among other things, from the list of those countries which have abolished the jurisdiction of the Privy Council for their own purposes. Commonwealth countries both old and new—Canada, India, Pakistan, Ghana, Cyprus, Nigeria and Tanganyika—all these have abandoned the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There is, of course, a list gratifyingly to be put on the other side, of those countries that have retained the jurisdiction. This list, again, comprises Commonwealth nations both old and new, which have voluntarily accepted a continuance of the Judicial Committee on arriving at independence. But the balance is rather, I fear, in favour of those which have abandoned the jurisdiction, and we must face the fact, whether or not it is the melancholy fact, that there is not in practice any prospect of enticing back to the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee those Commonwealth nations which have left it.
I therefore come to my third question: are we able to devise some modern form of a Commonwealth Court of Appeal which will serve this undoubted need, and serve it in a more contemporary and generally acceptable form than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? I believe that the answer is, and should be, "Yes". There are difficulties, of course. There are manifest difficulties and, like so many other things in life, it is undoubtedly true that had this been done earlier no doubt it could have been done more easily, but I am sure that that is not an argument that should prevent us from seeking to achieve an initiative in it now.
I think that we could and should now have an initiative for setting up a Commonwealth Court of Appeal. Such a court would have final jurisdiction in appeals and, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, we must accept in this country that if such a court comes into being it does exercise final jurisdiction in an appellate sense for us as well. To some extent, the acid test of our sincerity in this country is if we are prepared to go this length, and I think it right that we should.
Such a court of appeal for the Commonwealth would, of course, operate on the circuit system—unlike the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which has never sat elsewhere than in London. Such a court would be an itinerant court, and would be able to sit in panels or divisions in various parts of the Commonwealth, simultaneously if necessary, with a panel of judges drawn from all over the Commonwealth.
I heartily endorse what my hon. and learned Friend has said as to the range of experience, expertise, and legal learning that is available in the judiciary of the Commonwealth. There is a considerable support for this, and a considerable support to be found amongst the judiciary, and amongst lawyers and politicians and ordinary people, in so far as they are interested, in all parts, or many parts, of the Commonwealth.
Last summer The Times was good enough to publish an article by me on this subject. That brought me some interesting correspondence from the Commonwealth. I should like to quote this extract from a letter I received then from the Chief Justice of one of our more recently independent Commonwealth countries, whom I know as an eminent lawyer, a fair and formidable advocate in his day, and a very pleasant and agreeable companion. He writes this:
I very much hope that it"—
that is, the Commonwealth court—
will receive very early and favourable consideration. Unless it does, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will soon become no more than an interesting historical relic. Indeed, I sometimes fear that it is already so doomed. It is so much more difficult to restore than to destroy. The Commonwealth countries which have abolished the right of appeal to the Privy Council will therefore be


very loth to grant appellate jurisdiction now to a Commonwealth court of appeal. Further, the "neo-colonialist" argument which has grown so fashionable in the last five years will, I am sure, be trotted out against any such proposal. Yet I am in no doubt that such a court can play a very vital rôle, particularly in the progressive and uniform development of the common law(which is basic in most, if not all, of our jurisdictions) and in the resolution of constitutional problems arising out of the written constitutions which have become the vogue nowadays.
We can set up, in conjunction with our friends and partners in the Commonwealth, such a court without there being any invasion of the rights of sovereignty of the Commonwealth nations, because the Commonwealth, as the House knows, is an association of sovereign nations. Each Commonwealth nation will continue to have its own independent, unfettered, legislative capacity. In other words, the setting up of a Commonwealth court of appeal does not inhibit by one jot or one tittle the legislative freedom, for example, of this House.
But we should gain the great advantage of a common judicial interpretation of our Statute law produced by those independent sovereign Commonwealth nations and we should have the advantage also of a common interpretation of our common heritage of the common law, to which my friend the Chief Justice was referring in the extract which I have just read to the House.
I therefore believe that such a court can be at once a valuable link for Commonwealth unity and a valuable adjunct to the rule of law. I therefore venture to commend once again to the Minister of State, Commonwealth Relations Office the proposition that the Government of this country, as heart and centre of the Commonwealth, should take, and should take soon, the initiative for proposals to our Commonwealth partners for the setting up of such a court.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay(Mr. Gardner) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East(Sir D. Walker-Smith) in the eloquent and compelling pleas they have made for a Commonwealth court of appeal.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): I know that it is urgent and immediate and that we should treat it with respect, but with only four hon. Members opposite present and one right hon. and learned Gentleman strolling to his position on the Front Bench, the Front Bench having been completely empty for the past half an hour, it cannot be treated seriously by the Opposition as a topic warranting the urgent and immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This does not arise on this debate.

Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. That was a most uncalled-for intervention, especially since, until a Count was called, there were only two Members on the back benches opposite, one Minister and one Whip, although there were half a dozen on this side of the House at that time. May I continue with the debate?

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: On a point of order. Is it in order to refer to these matters?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was provoked into it, but I hope that he will get on with the subject of the debate.

Mr. Graham Page: I support the plea of my right hon. and learned Friends for a Commonwealth court of appeal but, unlike them, I believe that this proposal for a Commonwealth court of appeal could be a proposal for the modernisation of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As such it would be in the best traditions of constitutional evolution that we should build upon and develop and adapt our traditional and well-tried constitutional structure to our modern requirements, in this case the modern requirements of the Commonwealth.
We may not be so far apart in our approach to this subject. There is in the Judicial Committee an existing structure on which to build, and it is worth looking for a moment at the origin and development of the Judicial Committee to see how far it has approached to a Commonwealth court of appeal over the years and the experiments which are now being tried by the Judicial Committee.


I should disclose an interest here in that I am privileged to be on the roll of the Privy Council appeal agents and practise in that court.
At the foundation of the colonial empire in the seventeenth century, petitions to the king were referred to his Privy Council for its advice. They were referred to a Standing Committee of the Privy Council in order that that advice should be given. We were, of course, then concerned only with North America and the West Indies, but during the 19th century this was developed by Statute in order to deal at that time with the East Indies, until in 1883 the Judicial Committee itself was created to hear appeals from the Colonies and Dominions overseas and to advise Her Majesty.
As has been said, the Judicial Committee has not until recently given judgment. It has advised Her Majesty. I say "until recently" because I will come in a moment to the one instance. This jurisdiction was extended in 1890 to the foreign jurisdiction of Her Majesty and to countries under her protection.
By the 1930s the Judicial Committee had jurisdiction of appeal from courts in every quarter of the globe, embracing in area more than a quarter of the world and it was and is called upon to administer every possible system of law. It has, or had in the 1930s before the war, a wider jurisdiction than any court known in history.
In this connection it is important to look at its constitution, that is the judges called upon to sit in the Judicial Committee. They fall into four categories. There is the Privy Councillor who has held or holds high judicial office in this country, that is the Law Lords or other Privy Councillors who have held or now hold high judicial office. Next, two other Privy Councillors may be appointed by Her Majesty. The third category is all Privy Councillors who are or have been chief justices or judges of the superior courts of the Dominion or Provinces of Canada, of the Dominion court and State courts of Australia and of New Zealand, and, indeed, it is still the law that the same applies to the Union of South Africa. The fourth category is the appointment of any other Colonial or Dominion judge by Her Majesty.
In pursuance of that constitution—here, I want to show how the Judicial Committee has already developed towards a Commonwealth court of appeal in which judges sit from all over the Commonwealth—the Chief Justice of Canada used to sit quite frequently in the Judicial Committee. The Chief Justice of Australia, of New Zealand and of South Africa sat from time to time both before and after the last war. The late Mr. Da Silva, an eminent judge of Ceylon, sat regularly in the Judicial Committee for many years until his fairly recent death. The Chief Justice of New Zealand sat there for several months quite recently.
Thus, the Judicial Committee really has been a Commonwealth court, but it has always been my firm conviction that more of the independent States of the Commonwealth would have retained its appellate jurisdiction if there had been a firmer and more definite arrangement for judges from the Commonwealth to sit there, from the Colonies before they emerged to independence as well as from the independent Commonwealth countries. Furthermore, if, as has been suggested, the Judicial Committee had sat in other capitals of the Commonwealth, it is certain that more of the independent States of the Commonwealth would have retained its appellate jurisdiction.
The position today is very mixed, if I may put it in that way. Several of the Commonwealth countries still retain the old form of the Judicial Committee advising Her Majesty: Ceylon, Australia, both the Dominion court and the State courts of Australia, the West Indies, New Zealand and others such as Mauritius, the Seychelles, Fiji, British Honduras, and so forth.
Malaysia has discovered a new and satisfactory formula for itself. In the case of appeals to the Judicial Committee from Malaysia, the Judicial Committee does not advise Her Majesty but advises the Head of State of Malaya or the other countries forming Malaysia. The same arrangement was adopted for a time when Tanganyika became independent. In the case of appeals which remained uncompleted after independence, the Judicial Committee advised the President of Tanganyika and did not give its opinion in the form of advice to Her Majesty. For constitutional appeals


from Uganda the same formula is adopted.
We have here a formula which is thus acceptable to many of the countries which have become independent. There is, however, one case at present in which the Judicial Committee is a straight court of appeal. I refer to Kenya. The opinion of the Judicial Committee is not given as advice to Kenya or as advice to Her Majesty. It acts as a straight court of appeal.
These are experiments by the Judicial Committee through which there could be development to a full Commonwealth court of appeal. Having acted for appellants in the Judicial Committee and having visited members of the legal profession and of the judiciary in the Commonwealth, I know that the Judicial Committee is highly respected, and highly respected even by those countries which have now discarded its appellate jurisdiction.
I know that the drift away from the Judicial Committee by these countries as they became independent was not because the Court was not respected nor because they had any reason to believe that the quality of the judges in the Committee could be the cause of complaint. Indeed, the Committee has the finest legal brains in the world.
That has been recognised even by the independent states who left the Committee's jurisdiction. The legal profession and the present judiciary in Ghana have nothing but praise for the Committee although Ghana has left its jurisdiction. The same goes for Nigeria and the East African States. The reason for these countries leaving the jurisdiction of the

Committee is simply political. The Committee remains in an imperial form and as such it was unacceptable to many of the emergent nations of the Commonwealth.
Some, like Ceylon, remain. Yet others, like India and Pakistan, could not continue to accept it. It is interesting to note, however, that the number of appeals from those countries remaining has increased. The work of the Committee when India left dropped very much because it had been dealing with a great number of appeals from there. But since then the number of appeals sent from the countries which remained under the jurisdiction of the Committee has increased so that there can be no dissatisfaction with its jurisdiction in those countries.
If, on the other hand, the Committee had been recognised as a genuine Commonwealth court of appeal, all these independent nations, as they became independent, would have recognised it as a court of appeal in which they could take part and would not just have regarded it as a United Kingdom court.
The Commonwealth links are of value to the peace of the world. Links between nations in a Commonwealth such as ours could be either legislative, executive or judicial. Of course, the legislative and executive links are impracticable but the judicial link is certainly still practicable and a Commonwealth appeal court could be such a link. We in the United Kingdom have something to contribute in this respect in the setting up of such a court and the countries of the Commonwealth who might adopt it as their court of final appeal would quickly contribute as much to its development. I believe that it could be the greatest judicial success in history.

10.29 p.m.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Relations Office(Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): At the outset I should like to say that, as hon. Members know, it is the policy of the Government to encourage and to do all we can to promote any initiative which helps to strengthen the Commonwealth association. I need only mention in this connection the proposals, launched at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting last year, for a Commonwealth secretariat and a Commonwealth foundation. These are, as hon. Members also know, under careful consideration at present by all the Commonwealth Governments and we hope that final agreement will soon be reached on the establishment of a secretariat and the appointment of a secretary-general.
This will be a noteworthy and significant instance of the policy of Commonwealth co-operation by means of the setting up of an institution which will be at the service of all Commonwealth countries. It is in this spirit that I listened with the greatest interest to the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Billericay(Mr. Gardner). His speech combined the idealistic and the practical approaches and he has helped somewhat to dispel the notion which is prevalent that all lawyers are rather dull creatures. His concern in these matters is well-known, and I know that he has not hesitated to enter into public discussion of the question with other members of his profession. I am glad that he has now seized the occasion of this debate to bring forward the question of the Commonwealth court. It may be that Ministers at the Commonwealth Relations Office do not always have the opportunities we would like for stating our views on this kind of question. For these reasons, I am glad to take the chance offered me this evening by the initiative of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
As hon. Members will be aware, the question of setting up a Commonwealth court has been debated on and off for very many years. I believe it began as early as 1900, when suggestions on the subject were made by Australia. The matter was also considered by the Imperial Conference in 1930, and that Conference recommended the machinery

for the setting up of a tribunal to determine any disputes between Commonwealth members. The tribunal was to consist of five members to be drawn from Commonwealth countries, and the machinery is still there for any member who wishes to use it. In fact, it has never been used.
A further contribution was made in 1960 by the Government of Ceylon. This, I think, was similar to the concept which was discussed by Lord Denning in the same year. This was a proposal for a different sort of court to replace the appellate functions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The court was to be composed of distinguished judges from all Commonwealth countries, and the plan was that it should be composed of a number of divisions which would sit either in London or in other Commonwealth capitals as the occasion arose. I am afraid, however, that this suggestion did not have a very encouraging reception from other Commonwealth countries at the time, and in view of that it has not since been pursued.
Then, again, there is the particular proposal—and I am glad to have the opportunity of referring to this—which was made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in a debate with Professor H. R. W. Wade, to which I listened with great interest at the time. Professor Wade, as we all know, is also a distinguished authority. As I understand it, the suggestion made at that time was that regional courts of appeal should be created, such as the Court of Appeal of East Africa. This might in turn gradually build up into a system with the Commonwealth court as its head. I think this is certainly an idea that is worth considering, although I am sure the hon. and learned Member will agree with me that such an idea, if it were put into practice, would in fact postpone the idea of a Commonwealth court to, as it were, the second stage in the operation. These are some of the suggestions which have been made.
Perhaps I should say a word pointing out the difficulties which lie in the path of advance in the direction of a court; not so much to convey any opposition to the idea, as to indicate the kind of obstacles in the way. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself was realistic


enough to recognise that there are difficulties and that the path to the setting up of a Commonwealth court is fraught with all kinds of obstacles which would have to be overcome.
The chief difficulty, as I see it, is that no doubt a number of countries which have recently attained their independence and sole control over all of their affairs would tend to regard a court of this kind as a diminution of their sovereignty. I do not wish to embark on any discussion of the meaning of this word, or to enter into the argument which could be put forward for or against this point of view. This would involve me in very considerable complexity. All I need say is that this attitude is thoroughly understandable. One has to have regard to the fact that these new countries are sensitive on this question of their sovereignty. We all understand this.
Again, take the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member in the discussion to which I have referred—the suggestion for regional courts. It is easy to see that there might be rivalries between neighbouring countries which would tend to prevent the setting up of regional courts, and these might prove difficult to overcome. However, these are not insuperable, but I think it important to mention them to show the size of the problem.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the difficulty of sovereignty, would he not take this occasion to confirm what I said a few minutes ago, that a Commonwealth court of appeal does not involve any invasion of the legislative independence of the assemblies of the people of the sovereign nations and, therefore, there is no derogation from sovereignty in merely accepting a common interpretation of the laws of the countries by a court of appeal drawn from a representative membership of judges from those countries?

Mr. Hughes: I would not disagree with the right hon. and learned Member on that. What I am trying to say is that many Commonwealth countries may feel it would involve a diminution of sovereignty. Therefore, one has to proceed gradually in order that they may realise what is the concept which many of us have in mind.
But I want to turn now to the more constructive side. The hon. and learned

Gentleman has mentioned, I think, two approaches, and they have been mentioned also by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby(Mr. Graham Page). They both lead to the same end. The first is to take the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and to broaden it. I join with the right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to this distinguished body, which has an immense reputation, well earned, for impartiality in administering justice in all parts of the world. A book has recently been written on this subject by an American lawyer, an admirer of the system. It is entitled "Colonial Justice: The Unique Achievements of the Privy Council's Committee of Judges."
Among independent countries of the Commonwealth, appeal to the Judicial Committee is still retained by Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon, Malaysia, Sierra Leone, Trinidad, Jamaica, Malawi, Malta, and The Gambia. Kenya has kept it up to now, but it may be she will shortly abandon it. There is no doubt whatever that the Judicial Committee still enjoys an enormous prestige, a prestige which is well deserved. One way, perhaps, of making it more welcome as a final court of appeal from the courts of the independent countries is to broaden its membership.
This has for some time, as has been said, been the policy. A number of judges from the High Court of Australia and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand have been Privy Councillors and are available to sit on the Judicial Committee. The Chief Justice of Nigeria was likewise made a member of the Privy Council, and there is no reason at all why this process of expansion should not continue.

Sir Douglas Glover: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House how often those Privy Councillors from independent countries overseas have sat on the Judicial Committee?

Mr. Hughes: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman, for I have not the figures with me. If he will be good enough to put down a Question I will try to give him the reply.

Mr. Graham Page: I did a few minutes ago in my observations give my own


experience of having seen them—the Canadian Chief Justice, the Australian Chief Justice, the New Zealand Chief Justice—very recently the Chief Justice of New Zealand.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member is quite right, but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk(Sir D. Glover) was asking for statistics. I am afraid I have not got those before me at the present time.
I was going on to the second approach which the hon. and learned Gentleman made, and that is the creation of a new Commonwealth court which would include distinguished judges from all parts of the Commonwealth. It could, as he said, be peripatetic and sit in divisions in various parts of the Commonwealth as required, and would, indeed, be very similar to the Ceylon proposal which I mentioned and to the process which Lord Denning had in mind when he spoke about it in 1960. The setting up of a court of this kind would not itself be easy. For example, there would be difficult questions as to how the judges would be appointed. The upkeep of the court would be expensive, particularly if members had to travel. But all these things can be considered. The point I must make is that this move for a Commonwealth court can reach fruition only if there is a substantial measure of support for it in the Commonwealth.
To ascertain this, considerable consultation would be required. What we have to find out first is whether the indications are that support would be forthcoming. It was for this reason that the previous Government decided to take advantage of the Third Commonwealth and Empire Law Conference to be held in Sydney in August. It is expected that there will be lawyers at the conference from most independent countries in the Commonwealth and some of the dependent territories as well. It is also expected that there will be leading judicial and Ministerial personalities present. Certainly the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney-General are proposing to be there. I am extremely glad to know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is also proposing to attend.
This seems to me to be a most admirable occasion for a discussion of the

matter. One of the principal items on the agenda for the conference is intra-Commonwealth judicial machinery. This would seem to be an appropriate occasion to have a full discussion on this important subject. We take the same view as the former Government, that this will be the best opportunity for a full discussion of the question. We shall listen carefully to the views put forward by other countries, and we shall make our own contribution.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked if I could give him a word of encouragement. I am prepared to say now to the Committee that we support in principle the idea of a Commonwealth Court of this kind. It should be valuable as providing a final court of appeal of the highest calibre, especially for litigants from those countries whose resources are such as to make it difficult to maintain such a court of appeal themselves. This would be one of the functions. Such a court would also do much to ensure the homogeneous development of the law throughout the Commonwealth, a point to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. But I repeat that it is important to ascertain whether there is a general demand for it. If there is, we shall be very happy to do all we can to promote the setting up of such a Commonwealth Court.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I thank the Minister for his courteous and careful answer to the important question raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay(Mr. Gardner) about a Commonwealth court. I am sure that my right hon. and learned and hon. and learned Friends will be glad to pay attention to all that he has said. Many of us who are interested in the future of the Commonwealth and of the common law, of which the Commonwealth is the joint heir with the United States of America, will be glad to hear of the sympathetic interest of the Government. Indeed, I could have wished that more members of the Government Front Bench were present. I could have wished that the Minister of State, Board of Trade was present—

Mr. loan L. Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The right


hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) refers to the Government Front Bench, of which five Members are present, while he is the sole occupant of the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Sir Samuel Storey): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Hogg: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for sitting on that bogus point of order.
I just wanted to point out that I am sorry that the Minister of State, Board of Trade is not in the Chamber. Two members of the Cabinet are now present and I should like to inquire of them whether it is true, as we have been informed by our sources of information, that a rather serious event is about to happen. I should have liked to have seen the Leader of the House here and I should have liked to have seen the Prime Minister here and I should have liked to have seen the Paymaster-General here. The latter poked in for a moment or two, being the Oddjob of the Goldfinger apparatus, prepared to fling his steel bowler hat in any direction he thinks appropriate, provided that he does not come directly into the line of fire himself. Since only the Chancellor of the of the Exchequer is here and neither the First Secretary nor the Prime Minister, and as on the Consolidated Fund Bill it is the administration of the Government which is under consideration, I shall address my remarks to him.
We on this side of the House are told that the House of Commons is about to witness an event which has never taken place before, that is to say, a deliberate filibuster by the back benchers under the command of the Paymaster-General from behind, like the Duke of Plaza Toro—he finds it more exciting that way. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Paymaster-General is taking his place on the firing step. We are told, and perhaps right hon. Gentlemen will confirm or otherwise, that the first filibuster of the British Parliament is about to be staged under the command of the Government.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that this comes under adminstrative policy for which the Government are responsible.

Mr. Hogg: Of course I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was

saying that the first filibuster was about to take place under the command of the Government and by arrangement of the Government.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: What we are discussing is administrative policy.

Mr. Hogg: I understand this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I was about to say that I was entirely concerned with the Government's administrative policy and I was about to ask whether the policy to which I have adverted is likely to be carried out this evening.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are discussing only administrative policy arising out of the Supply which is now being considered.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order. Is it the logic of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out a filibuster?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Hogg: Whether in order or out of order, I shall detain the House for only a very short time, if out of order because I am ruled out of order and if in order because I have finished the little I wanted to say. If what we hear is true, we shall leave the Government to carry on on their own.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot discuss what private Members are doing. All he can discuss is the administrative policy based on the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: I am concerned only with the members of the Government and their administrative policy. We are considering among other things their salaries. We want to know whether their salaries are well paid for. Are we spending public money on their salaries to good purpose if they are engaged on authorising or organising the first filibuster in the history of Parliament?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are not discussing whether there is a filibuster by private Members. All the right hon. and learned Gentleman can discuss is the Government's administrative policy based on Supply.

Mr. Hogg: I certainly do not want to discuss the speeches of private Members


whose right to occupy the time of the House is very properly engaged on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
What I do want to elicit from the Government is whether they, who are, after all, fully paid up servants of the public, whose salaries, so far as I know, are paid out of the Consolidated Fund, are engaged upon organising, or authorising, the first filibuster in the history of Parliament. With deference to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but without any deference to the Front Bench opposite, I was going to ask whether—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. William Hamling: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am about to rule on a point of order raised by the right hon. and learned Member. I repeat that he can discuss only administrative policy in relation to the Supply which is being authorised under the Bill. He cannot discuss whether right hon. Members of the Government are organising private Members to make special speeches in this House.

Mr. Hamling: On a point of order. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be in order if, instead of making this sort of speech, he moved to reduce the Minister's salary by£10 or something like that?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would not be in order on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Hogg: The only way in which I can make my protest is to leave the Chamber.

10.51 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: Not being a lawyer, I intervene in this debate with some trepidation. I apologise for not being present for the whole of it, but I had other engagements.
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) on raising this subject. I believe that this is a matter of—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Gentlemen will allow me to make my speech. I am speaking seriously on a serious subject. I believe that my hon. and learned Friend has done a great service not only to the House, but to the Commonwealth, in

raising this matter on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
The Minister of State who wound up the debate, if that is the right word, said that this matter was first raised in 1900, when it did not receive much support, that it was raised again in the 'thirties, and again it did not receive very much support. I do not think that that is surprising. When one talked about a Colonial Empire in 1900, even Australia, New Zealand and Canada were very touchy about sovereignty, but as the years went by, and their independence became more and more obvious, they realised that there was greater strength in voluntary association than they did in 1900.
In the 'thirties they had not reached that stage, but during the last 10 to 15 years, when so many other countries have gained their independence, there has been a great unease over any initiative coming from this country for co-operation because we were frightened that they would think we were trying to reimpose some element of colonial rule or colonial cooperation, and therefore the whole of this demand must come from countries outside the United Kingdom.
I thought that the demand at the last Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference for the establishment of a Secretariat was a very significant step forward in the belief that I have, that the growth of Commonwealth association will come from outside this country, rather than from this country giving the lead.
Having raised this subject of a Commonwealth court, my hon. and learned Friend has provided an opportunity for discussing it, and it is significant that, going back to feudal times, the formation of this country as a coherent country came from the codification of the law. It was the law that made the nation, rather than the nation that made the law. It is significant that that happened in this country, and I believe that if we are going to get real Commonwealth co-operation, it is much more likely to come, funnily enough, by the lawyers getting together and producing a Commonwealth court, and seeing, by the process of law, that there is a real value in our association, than by purely political means.
From the process of law we may develop a closer economic system, but


I am sure that the law is the first step, and that now that these countries have become independent and, as each year goes by, become less and less worried about any neo-colonialism on the part of this country, and quite convinced of our sincerity in giving them their independence—and realise that what we want to do is to create a close association of free nations—the move to get a Commonwealth court can be as great a move in this matter as was the establishment of the Commonwealth Secretariat last year.
But I agree with the other speakers in this short debate that we must move very slowly in this matter. I speak not as a lawyer; in fact, the only times I have ever had any dealings with the law have been on a minor basis as a criminal—for parking my car in the wrong place, or some equally minor offence. Therefore, the law frightens me. The one thing that we must guard against in the establishment of a Commonwealth court of appeal, even on a regional basis, is delay. Even in this country the great criticism of the law is the delay that arises in the hearing of appeals. The ordinary litigant finds that his case remains in abeyance for a long time, even with our tight-knit community. If such a court were placed in this country the danger of my hon. and learned Friend's proposal is that if the scope of the court were brought to too low a level we would produce a greater degree of delay than exists at the moment.
One-and-a-half years ago I went to Mauritius and the Seychelles. I was disappointed at not being called in the debate we had on these matters not long ago, because I wanted to deal with the problem of Mauritius and the Seychelles. I am one of probably only three hon. Members who know where they are. [Interruption.] Then one of probably only five Members. As a non-lawyer I found a ghastly situation to exist in the Seychelles, and I took steps about it as soon as I came back. I was glad to hear, immediately on the calling together of this Parliament—and I am sure that it was as a result of the representations that I made on my return—that it had been arranged that a travelling appellate court should deal with appeal cases in the Seychelles. They are a small group of islands, and their population amounts

only to about 41,000, but if a person there is unfortunate enough to be involved in litigation in the civil courts—the system there stems back to Napoleonic times, and the law is based on Napoleonic law—the only place to which he can take his appeal is Mauritius.
To us, sitting here and looking at the map, that appears to be a sensible arrangement, but to get from the Seychelles to Mauritius such a person has to take a week's cruise on a ship from the Seychelles to Mombasa, fly from Mombasa to Mauritius, have his appeal heard, wait for the next aircraft back to Mombasa, and then probably sit there for a fortnight until the next boat for the Seychelles. The result is that nearly all appeal cases have been heard in absentia. Very few litigants ever went to Mauritius. Documents were sent by post for production in court there, and although the litigants often felt aggrieved at the results of their appeals they were never able to attend the court because, unless the case was very serious, it was not worth the expense involved in making this circular tour.
A person who was involved in a criminal case, however, was subject to Anglo-Saxon law, and in that case his appeal was heard in Nairobi. He had to go from the Seychelles, again by boat, to Nairobi, and then, his appeal having been heard—which might take only half an hour—wait for a fortnight until the next boat went back. Again, unless it was a serious case such a person could not afford to appeal.
When I came back from the Seychelles and went to see my hon. Friend who was Parliamentary Secretary at the time, he instituted inquiries, and these were in train when the present Government came to power. I was delighted to hear that it had been arranged for a travelling appellate court to visit the Seychelles, so that the people there would be saved the enormous expense that was involved in appealing.
I think I have shown to the House the sort of delays that can arise by creating a court designed to deal with something in a place remote from where the crime or difficulty arose. I think that my hon. and learned Friend has done an immense service to the House by raising this subject. I would ask him, in his discussions in Sydney or elsewhere if he goes there,


to remember that it is important if regional courts are established that some system of costs for the transportation of the defendant, appellant and so on, should be introduced, otherwise nobody would use such a court unless it was a very large case. I say that because if what my hon. and learned Friend visualises was a sort of Privy Council sitting to decide purely the boundaries between States, its members would meet on such infrequent occasions that they would not knit the Commonwealth together.
I think that what my hon. and learned Friend really has in mind is that our system of justice should become Commonwealth-wide, and that there should be a common system of appeal throughtout the Commonwealth.
On the question of the Privy Council, I asked how many of these very distinguished people from overseas in fact had sat, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby(Mr. Graham Page) cited the case of certain chief justices and so on. I think that it would be found that a good many of these honours go to people as honours rather than as practical persons dealing with judicial cases as part of the Privy Council. If we are going to knit together a court of this kind, I think we have to take the risk by making quite certain that it is a Commonwealth court.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I think it would be a mistake to say that it is merely an honour. These judges were appointed because they were judges of standing and distinction in their own countries.

Sir D. Glover: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because he has misunderstood me. Of course, I accept that nobody is appointed to this distinction except at a very distinguished and high level, but it is sufficient for them to sit and act once. It must become established practice in a Commonwealth court that they do not sit once but on a roster like magistrates do, so that they know month by month that they are going to sit.
If that system really became operative we would take an enormous step forward in getting a Commonwealth basis of law. People in the legal profession in all the countries of the Commonwealth would want to get into this position, because they would feel that not only

were they doing a good job in law, but also in knitting the Commonwealth together as an entity. To do that they have got to be active. We should look to see if we cannot make a lot of these distinguished people far more active in these affairs than they have been in the past.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

11.3 P.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I regret that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. F. V. Corfield) does not appear to be in his place, as one understood that he was going to raise the subject on which I wish to make some comment, that of the general question of town and country planning and its relationship to local government.
I think it is somewhat discourteous to the House after the matter had been noticed, and notice given to the House, that the hon. Member should not in fact now be in his place.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Blenkinsop: As my right hon. Friend the Minister has shown his care and concern by coming to the House to reply to this debate, together with his Parliamentary Secretary, it seems to me rather astonishing—

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, is not here to raise this point, can we have a debate on it?

Mr. Speaker: The proposition we are debating is whether or no the Bill should now be read a Third time. The hon. Member called to speak on the topic is the hon. Member who catches my eye.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I merely wish to call the attention of the House to this matter, but of course I did give notice that I wished to say something on this subject, too, because it is obviously a matter of very great concern and it is not very often that back-bench Members get an opportunity of raising matters of this consequence. Therefore, one appreciates very much the opportunity that is available this evening.
I would first of all like to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions relating to the South-East Study, which has been a matter of particular concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, before I proceed to raise some rather wider questions on town and country planning generally.
The South-East Study has been a matter of a great deal of dispute in this House. It was, indeed, in dispute before the General Election took place, and at that time there were some very contrasting views expressed about it. In particular, one group of experts, as I think we can probably call them, from the Town and Country Planning Association expressed their criticisms of the Study, particularly because they felt that the estimates given in that Study of population growth were likely to prove inaccurate. I would like to start by asking my right hon. Friend whether he has any evidence to support that criticism that was made at the time—whether, indeed, the natural population growth provided for in the South-East Study is, in fact, far less than is likely to prove the case, and that, in fact, the position may well be worse and not better than was estimated in the Study.
The second point of criticism raised by the Town and Country Planning Association, and, indeed, by many others, was doubts about whether the Study should have allowed for the influx from other parts of the country into the South-East, which, of course, many hoped might be stopped altogether. They also raised what is a perfectly valid point about the assumption that industrial growth would be maintained in the South-East—the very factor which is likely to accentuate all our present problems and which is likely to attract population growth and all the other social problems associated with it.
It was urged that very much stronger measures should be taken in order to limit industrial growth, and also, of course, to put a stop—even a temporary stop—to office accommodation building. As we know, this present Government since the General Election have taken very rapid action on these lines, and the only reason why a particular Bill is not yet through the House is the delaying

tactics adopted by hon. Members on the other side.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: As a member of that Committee, I repudiate that insinuation very strongly, and I would like to ask the hon. Member if he has ever attended the proceedings of the Committee.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, I took the precaution of doing so on one occasion, and it was obvious in a matter of minutes what was going on. It was perfectly clear, too, that when it was mentioned that additional sittings of that Committee would have to be taken, an arrangement was very quickly come to about the period of time within which sittings would be completed—a much more satisfactory arrangement.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: May I remind my hon. Friend that the hon. Member who has just intervened has probably been one of the greatest offenders?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I would not make any comment on that, but I would like to express my pleasure at seeing the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South in his place, and express my hope that perhaps he will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, rather later in this debate.
Now that the hon. Member is in his place, I can, as I intended to do, express my apologies for something that I said about him on an earlier occasion when I quite unfairly suggested that he had no contact with planning matters concerning our National Parks. It is clear on looking through the record of the hon. Member's speeches when he held office as Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing aria Local Government that he did, indeed, reply to a number of debates and Questions on the subject of the National Parks and, therefore, it was quite wrong of me to suggest that he had not taken part in discussions on that subject. I withdraw those comments and criticisms fully.
I cannot, however, withdraw my criticism concerning the hon. Member's knowledge or expertise on the subject, because I still feel that his comments in the House on earlier occasions on planning matters as they affected National


Parks showed a good deal of lack of knowledge of the subject.
When the hon. Member took his place, I was speaking about the South-East Study and asking my right hon. Friend the Minister one or two questions which might well be of interest to hon. Members, on both sides, both concerning the estimates of population growth that were included in the Study and on questions relating to the restriction of industrial development and the criticisms that were made of its effect when the Study was published. I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend can make any further comment upon the Study as to whether in any other major respects statistically it is proving to be at all inaccurate.
One well knows the difficulties about this kind of statistical exercise and one makes no complaint against the authors of the Study, but it would certainly be valuable to hon. Members, on both sides, if further information could be given on that subject. It is a matter of real concern to all of us if the position is even worse than the Study suggested.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the decision of the First Secretary and the Government to introduce regional planning boards will redress many of the points that he is raising? Would he like to comment on the problem of the regional planning boards and what they might do in stopping the drift to the South-East?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I completely accept what my hon. Friend says. I was hoping that others of my hon. Friends might wish to raise some of those matters.
I proposed to go on from there to deal with one or two rather wider questions on the issue of town and country planning and its relationship to local government: first, to emphasise again, as it is important to emphasise, that the whole object of town and country planning is to secure a higher quality of environment in which people can live. It is concerned essentially with people. It is not right to suggest, as has been suggested, that it is concerned purely with matters of economics and the hard question of whether people can live at all. It has a wider objective of being concerned with the

actual quality of living as well as the necessity of living.
One of the first questions in considering town and country planning matters and the relationship of the subject to local government is the whole question of land prices. I realise that part of this question is outside the authority of my right hon. Friend, but, nevertheless, in considering the question of town and country planning it is of obvious importance that we should know more fully the impact of land prices upon it.
Hon. Members opposite have expressed rather differing views. In the months before the General Election, right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who were then on the Government side—including the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South—insisted that they believed that it was perfectly satisfactory to rely upon market values for compensation purposes for land. They—or at least the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South— gave no indication at that time of wishing to move from that. I think that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who was then Minister of Housing and Local Government, on one occasion gave some indication that he hoped that some change would be made, and he did, of course—

Mr. F. V. Corfield: Would the hon. Member oblige me by giving the date to which he is referring, as I think he is almost certainly wrong in what he is saying?

Mr. Blenkinsop: The date of the hon. Member's remarks was July, 1964, when the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South, in answer to a Question in the House, reasserted the virtue of market value for compensation purposes, when his right hon. Friend, who was then Minister of Housing and Local Government, had made various suggestions in the House as to the ways in which local authorities might avoid the most severe impact of market values by buying land well in advance of their need and so on. There was an occasion on which he appeared to go much further than this, and suggested that he was anxious to avoid the whole betterment value going to a few private individuals.
However that may be, it is quite clear that, more recently, right hon. and hon.


Gentlemen on the other side have begun to change their views and are now putting forward various proposals with regard to the prices of land—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am very glad to have the encouragement and support of my hon. Friends, because I was pointing out that one of the matters which very much affect local authorities in the pursuance of their town and country planning powers was the question of land prices. I was saying that it was of great interest, I know to all of us in the House, and, indeed, to many people outside, that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to have been changing their views on this matter, and recently to have been—

Mr. Orme: Where are they?

Mr. Blenkinsop: We are very grateful to have one hon. Member on the opposite side—I apologise, three hon. Members on the opposite side, and we should be grateful that such mercies are vouchsafed to us.

Mr. Orme: And after a Count.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I was trying to follow this important matter of land prices. I think that we are particularly concerned to know what the views of hon. Members opposite are today. There is no doubt at all that one of the factors which has very much influenced local authorities and made their problem infinitely greater has been the Amendments which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have made to the Town and Country Planning Acts, and the way in which they have enforced the payment of market values in compensation for land required for urgent and important local authority planning purposes.
One example of this is the problem affecting local authorities in the redevelopment of their city centres. This is a matter of particular concern to hon. Members who represent the larger and, in some cases, some of the small towns. The vast cost involved in acquiring the land necessary for major redevelopment is bound to be a matter of concern, and hon. Members have from time to time tabled Questions

about this asking whether some special measures could be taken to assist local authorities.
We have hopes that some assistance will be given through the proposals which, we understand, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources will be bringing before the House shortly. We are conscious of the difficulties which face all major local authorities in any ambitious plans which they wish to carry out.
In the past local authorities have been urged by Government spokesmen to be ambitious in their plans, not to be satisfied with piecemeal redevelopment schemes and to attempt to tackle their problems in an exciting and dramatic way. They have been urged to carry out the major part of this work under their own control, but experience has revealed to many of us that they face a considerable number of difficulties in doing this.
To carry through a major plan of redevelopment of an ambitious and worth-while kind in a city centre a local authority must employ architects and planners of high quality, perhaps bringing in architects from abroad as well. An ambitious, dramatic and exciting development of this kind must involve enormous problems of cost, problems which the local ratepayers are unlikely to welcome, however much they may welcome the broad outline of the plan.
Because of this many local authorities have felt obliged to call in private speculative bodies of one sort or another to lessen the immediate financial impact. This, alas, results in the kind of development we all too often see when going through many of our provincial towns. That is often the result when a development is left in the hands of a private development company. All too often the result is drab and uninspiring, since the company is concerned purely with obtaining an immediate financial return.
We need schemes that are stimulating, exciting, are a real challenge to the community. A terrible example of commercial development—one of the worst—can be seen in the Elephant and Castle area in London. Some of the buildings there, including the one which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health must


occupy, are typical of unambitious commercial development which we might well have been better off without. Throughout the country we see drab city centres and often the reason is the way in which local authorities have been driven to accept commercial private developers to reduce the charge on the ratepayers. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to do what he can to encourage local authorities everywhere to be reasonably ambitious in their programmes; and to help and encourage them, possibly through interest rates, and in other ways, to do the job that I am sure he would wish them to do.
Many of us are anxious lest plans should be developed on too narrow a basis. All recent technical developments and, above all, the problems of transport, force upon us the need to plan on a wide basis. There are grave dangers if too many cf our planning authorities, who may still be limited in their outlook, are tempted to come forward with plans without adequate consideration of wider regional needs. The work of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary is emphasising explicitly the newly-developing regional pattern. Hon. Members of the Liberal Party have also expressed themselves quite vigorously on the subject of regional authorities, and have said that they should be popularly elected. There are many differences of view on this subject, but it is one that needs consideration.
What is clear is that we must increasingly look upon the region as the natural basis on which to build our planning work. I am concerned lest we should fall into what I think is the trap of concentrating too much on our planning upon narrow conurbations, without taking into full account the rural communities laying adjacent to them. No planning can be effective that artificially isolates a purely rural community from its natural background. There are anxieties in many of our conurbations lest proposals put forward by commissions in examining particular problems should be outdated almost before the ink is dry on their reports. Many of us feel that if these suggested new urban counties are proceeded with, it is highly likely that they will, in turn, be superseded by a wider regional authority. I should be pleased to hear any comment my right hon. Friend may have to make on that aspect.
I realise that this is only a very limited and temporary kind of appraisal of a few points of a very wide subject, but a matter that is particularly dear to my heart is planning for recreational and leisure facilities. In the past, too many town and country planning authorities tended to assume that this was something outside their scope; that it was proper to leave recreational and leisure facilities on a completely unplanned basis, and that people would find the kind of facilities they wanted automatically, and without special planning being attempted.
I do not think that anybody now would pretend that that could be regarded as true. I think that nearly all our chief planning officers now recognise that this is as real a need as the physical requirements of housing, a health service, education, and the rest. The needs for recreation and for leisure pursuits are vital in our community today. They are vital in both the urban setting and the rural setting; one is related to the other.
Again, it is most important that we look at this on a regional basis and not too narrow or parochial a one. Only if we can greatly increase the facilities for recreation near our great urban centres is there any hope of our being able to preserve some of the more sensitive and wilder parts of our countryside from the damage which over-use may otherwise cause. This is why the exciting scheme here in the London area, the Lea Valley project, is so stimulating. It is a project which offers great attraction for both indoor and outdoor recreation for vast numbers of people, many of whom might otherwise have to travel far greater distances for similar facilities. I hope that both my right hon. Friends, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, will do all they can to encourage schemes of this kind.
There must be similar opportunities in many other parts of the country. One thinks of industrial Lancashire, Yorkshire, parts of the North-East and elsewhere where the need is so urgent. It is possible, at one and the same time, to reclaim derelict areas, gravel pits, disused quarries, and the like, and provide water sport facilities which can be enormously attractive if properly developed.
There are some exciting examples of what can be done in Staffordshire, for example, where the authority has done remarkable reclamation work both near areas like Cannock Chase, which has been declared an area of outstanding natural beauty, and farther away in places which no one would have imagined to have any intrinsic beauty. A new beauty and attraction have been created there by the work the Staffordshire authority has set on foot, and the same kind of thing could be done in other parts of the country.

Mr. Palmer: Would my hon. Friend say something about the South-West, for instance, parts of Cornwall which have been ruined by industrial development?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am no authority on the South-West, although I know something of the problems to which my hon. Friend refers, particularly in the areas affected by clay workings and so on. Perhaps other hon. Members may be able to speak about these matters from their special knowledge.
I strongly urge that this new phase of planning be given every encouragement. It opens up very great new possibilities, and offers also the hope that areas of outstanding beauty in our rather remoter parts, our National Parks and elsewhere, may be more fully used and more properly used for, perhaps, rather more limited forms of recreation by those who love the quiet. There is more chance of their needs being met if we can ensure that the more gregarious tastes—good luck to them—have the chance of being catered for somewhat nearer to our towns. In the same way, it would be possible to reduce the congestion falling on our already overcrowded roads.
I have done no more than attempt to open the subject. I hope that we shall hear the views of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South. If I have done no more, I hope that I have made it possible for the House to have the benefit of his observations and those of other hon. Members.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I am sure we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) for raising this very important

subject. I am pleased also to see the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) in his place. His previous responsibilities fit him to make a contribution to our discussion, and we are also aware of the great interest he takes in this subject.
I welcome the opportunity to speak, because this is one of the important subjects which many of us think should be aired and which should get far more discussion than they have had. The proceedings tonight give many hon. Members a chance to air subjects which they feel are of great importance to their constituencies and to the country. Now that the Debate on the Address is over and we have not a chance normally of getting in with subjects dear to our hearts, we have now an opportunity to be seized and I am pleased that this subject has been initiated by my hon. Friend.
Those of us on this side of the House who are keen Members are anxious at any time of night or day to take a chance to talk about things which concern us and our constituents. I am honoured to represent a constituency which covers about 300 square miles of Nottinghamshire and which has about 83 towns, villages or districts. It is a vast area and, therefore, I am particularly concerned about town and country planning and its relationship to local government. We realise the important part played in our society by those engaged in local government. I have a particular interest here because, for the best part of 20 years, I have been a member of a city council with very important planning responsibilities.
Be that as it may, the area I am honoured to represent has many contrasts. It seems that, in future, not only in that area but in other areas throughout the country, the need for sensible and wise planning is of great importance because things which are not well planned at the start often cannot be retrieved and damage done remains a very long time. These matters are, therefore, of great import.
Perhaps I may illustrate the area I represent. There is the great coal-mining area of the East Midlands on one side of my constituency. It also has agriculture, which has its own concerns these days and which includes intensive husbandry with probably the biggest units


of the poultry industry in the country. There are also the small farmers. It also has some of the few oil wells in Britain. Newark is an old and historic city with engineering and diverse light industries.
Most of us want to see the best of these historic interests preserved as much as possible and to see that they are blended in with the needs of the present and the future. In all matters of planning and development, we are concerned about the need to accommodate the ever-growing traffic. We want to make sure that agricultura land is preserved because we realise that land lost to housing can never he reclaimed for agriculture.
We realise the important part agriculture plays in our economy through the substantial contributions it makes to our balance of payments and to food production. We recognise that our local considerations and anxieties must be set against the wider pattern of regional development. We must have regard to historic associations where they exist and to historic and geographic boundaries and make sure that our towns, cities and villages retain as far as possible the individual characteristics with which they have been associated for centuries. We want to make sure, as my hon. Friend pointed out, of satisfying the need to satisfy future social life in the centre of our cities, which someone has described as cemeteries with traffic lights. We want to make them live. We want to make sure that all this is set against a background of a properly balanced and developed community. These are important considerations. No matter what the hour, my hon. Friends and I feel that we have the right to use this opportunity to make sure that this green and pleasant land remains that way, because many of us feel that it is becoming less green and less pleasant.
There is a need to avoid piecemeal development schemes. We want to get away from ribbon development, to make sure that towns do not grow too large and to see that we have other communities in the area to supplement them without joining with them. We feel strongly that there is a need for more consultation between planning authorities. I know that in county areas, where the county council is the planning authority, there is not always the consultation which

should exist between the county council and the urban and rural district councils and the parish councils, too. At the same time, when there is consultation, we must be careful to see that there is not too much delay, because consultation in excess means delay.
We must make sure that our local planners are trained and experienced in the job which they have to do, and some fears which I have expressed here must be shared by my hon. Friends—fears that some people concerned with planning on our planning committees do not always have the range of vision, background and experience which they need to carry out their important tasks. At the same time, I pay tribute to those who have made very substantial contributions in the past. We know only too well how very important all this is, because in future those who are concerned with planning must have regard to the social life, community development and traffic considerations. They need to be experts in traffic control. They must have some knowledge of psychology and the way in which people live, and of the tensions in a modern built-up community and the frictions between people and districts. All these factors are important if we are to ensure proper development.
At the same time, we must not lose sight of the individuality and character and colour of our cities, towns and villages. In many ways there is a great pride in local communities. When parish councils are threatened—if that is the word—with being taken over by neighbouring authorities, they fight for their lives because they want to retain their identity and they do not want to be swallowed by what they regard as big brother around the corner.
These are matters which must be borne in mind all the time. While we pay attention to the need to maintain existing associations, we must beware of the wider considerations, the need of those working in the local community to have regard to the comprehensive use of amenities and facilities in our municipal life and rural communities, the sharing of services, the balance of economic units, and the financial aspects of local government. All these factors are relevant to town and country planning and its association with the local government at all levels.
We must also have regard to the wider implications of the economic development of the country. In theory one would like local authorities to have the finance and economic means whereby they can go ahead and develop their towns and villages in a comprehensive way and avoid piecemeal development. That is why it is so important that the Government of the day should pledge themselves to end the stop-go policies of the past and to provide a programme of balanced development.
Some of us who have worked in local government—and I have been chairman of a finance committee of an authority with a budget of £20 million of spending—realise how important it is economically to avoid "Stop-Go". We want to make sure that when we get on with housing development, with roads and transport, with public buildings, schools and all the rest of it, the plans on which we are embarked can go forward as laid out in the estimates for years to come. Of course, it mitigates against good development to have this business of getting on with the job and then stopping suddenly because of economic considerations, and then being told to get on again. This is bad from the point of view of good development, and I think we have got to make sure that in the future, as far as possible, we have assurances from the Minister and from his Government colleagues that, within the framework within which we have to operate in the field of our own municipal and social responsibilities, the things which we plan to do can go forward to fruition as the years go by.
One matter which concerns me particularly, of course—and I think it is also of concern to other hon. Members—is the matter of land use. I made the point just now that the land which is lost to housing and other developments from agricultural purposes cannot be easily reclaimed. This is of great importance. We realise the drastic amount of change we need in our land use in order to accommodate housing developments. We want to see many more houses built to clear the slums and to get rid of the hideous aspects of life in our community. At the moment, we want to make sure that we have the best use of agricultural land, and we

also want to ensure that marginal land is used as widely as possible.
In my own particular constituency, I am more than a little concerned at the extent of gravel workings, because I know farmers who are threatened with their farms being broken up into uneconomic units because someone comes along and says, "I am seeking planning authority from the local authority to take over part of your farm for gravel workings". The farmer seems to have little defence against that. I should like to know to what extent agricultural land has been lost not only to housing, which is absolutely essential, but also to gravel workings in various parts of the country. This is a problem concerning not only the loss of agricultural land, but also, of course, the building up of areas which are not always very beautiful to look at in our countryside. These are some of the matters which must be concerning us in the future.
At the same time, as well as the need for housing, we have got to appreciate that, if we want to have more houses or units of accommodation, and at the same time not lose too much agricultural land, we need more flats accommodation. Of course, the problem there is that such accommodation does not always fit in very easily with the skyline and the environment of some of our communities, especially the historical ones where there are ancient castles, seige works and ruins around. But one has to try to fit into modern communities flat dwellings. These are some of the aspects.
It seems to me that a great problem which we face in the future, in taking a look at our housing developments and the slums which we have got—probably well over a million—is that before we deal with them there will be many more sub-standard houses turning into slums, each presenting a problem to successive generations. We must have regard to some of the so-called charming cottages in the countryside, which look so nice to people who flash by in their cars, but which are really nothing but dwellings which ought to have been scrapped many years ago. Many of them are without fixed baths, many are without piped water, many are without proper sanitation. I feel from time to time that, if only the Government would promise to


get rid of bad sanitation in the countryside, they would have more Seats, and this, of course, would greatly enhance their majority next time. There are all these considerations.
Of course, the Report which was recently published on the state of our school buildings indicates the extent of the work which must be done. It is really startling to realise how many hundreds of thousands of children are being taught in schools which were built before 1875, and many more, of course, in schools built before the turn of the century. There are, of course, many other schools which were built before the turn of the century.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Member is speaking about his association with the City of Bristol, where he was chairman of the finance committee. He will, of course, recall that it is his Government who have taken away the freedom of the people of Bristol to spend their money on making school improvements, about which he is now speaking.

Mr. Bishop: I do not intend to digress—

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Member cannot answer the question.

Mr. Bishop: —from the subject which is under consideration. The fact is, of course, that the Government have to have regard to the immense calls upon their purse in so many directions at the present time and must have a sense of priorities, and I certainly leave to the Minister to assess how the money is to be spent.

Mr. Cooke: Bristol would rather not.

Mr. Bishop: I know the hon. Member is trying to catch the eye of the Press to get a write up in the local newspaper, but I think even the local Press must have gone home by this time. Be that as it may, the fact is we need to have regard to the present position and also to the inheritance, and the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), who approves freedom, should therefore have regard to the Report which has now been published and which ought to have been published before the election took place and which has exposed the inactivity of the previous Administration over many years gone by. So we have

inherited a great task in order to bring this accommodation up to date. One could talk at great length, of course, on the subject of school buildings. They are a challenge to us. I have no doubt this Government will get on with the job, the job which should have been done by the previous Administration of the hon. Member opposite.

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Member has accused the Government who were in office before the election of not getting on with this job and concealing the state of school buildings, and yet it is his Government who have taken away the power of Bristol Corporation to spend the ratepayers' money on school improvements. Can he answer that one?

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: Would my hon. Friend like to answer the hon. Gentleman opposite by—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions upon interventions create confusion, so we do not allow them.

Mr. Bishop: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I deplore the way in which the hon. Member opposite is bringing politics into this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Having seen the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South here, I did not realise that the hon. Member had been creeping up on me in this way, but his intervention ought not to worry us.

Mr. Palmer: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, in reference to Bristol, that it is the tremendous activity of Bristol's Labour-controlled education committee which makes the extra spending necessary?

Mr. Bishop: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central(Mr. Palmer), for whose area I have the honour to be a member of Bristol City Corporation at the present time. I appreciate his intervention On this point.
I now want to turn to some aspects which I think will interest the hon. Member for Bristol, West, who withdrew, I understand, his desire to speak on the preservation of ancient buildings tonight—in case he was not here when the opportunity occurred.

Mr. Cooke: I am sorry to interrupt again, but since the hon. Member uses


this opportunity to refer to it, perhaps he will bear in mind that I withdrew my topic because I did not wish it in any way to be used by the Government side to try to impede the progress of a vital Bill which deals with a human problem and which comes into tomorrow's business.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Why does the hon. Member keep getting up then?

Mr. Bishop: The fact remains that the matter of the planning and development of our towns and cities means that we have to have regard to the characteristics and the traditions of the areas with which we are concerned. Many of us feel that the development of our towns and cities and villages at present leaves much to be desired. There is the problem, of course, often due to extremism, on the one hand of those who want to preserve almost everything because of either real or supposed historical associations and, on the other, of those who want to make drastic clearances of almost everything. The result is that the average man stands by rather apathetically wondering what he can do about it between the two extremes. I realise—many of us do—that in many of our communities there are civic societies, archaeological societies and so on anxiously watching the way things are going. Some declare that buildings must be preserved because of their historical associations. I suppose that in almost every community one finds local people who say that some church, chapel or other building should be preserved because of its associations. There must be an enormous number of churches and chapels where Whitfield, Spurgeon and Wesley and others have preached, which is given by local people as reason for preserving them. I suppose that the number of places where those well-known preachers have spoken must be equal to the number of places where various Queens of England are said to have laid their heads over the years.
In all this we need a sense of proportion. Harm can be done by an unreasonable insistence on the preservation of certain features of every community. I recall an area—hon. Members from the South-West will know the place to which I refer—where outside the new bus station there remained for a considerable time

on an island a Georgian house which many people said should not be destroyed or damaged but preserved, and buses had to go round it at great inconvenience. The amazing fact is that only a hundred yards or so away there was a perfectly good Georgian house preserved as such, equipped and furnished for the purpose and in keeping with the building, which was maintained by the museum and art gallery committee. That sort of thing is found in many parts of the country.
I understand that throughout the country there are more than 1,000 schemes of development which are likely to require the approval of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in the near future, and many of them will affect our historic towns. Although one may say that there are plenty of safeguards, at the same time many feel that there remains much to be desired if we are to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not to be repeated.
There is a matter on which I hope the Minister will say something. Many of us feel that many buildings which ought to remain are nevertheless in danger. I understand that the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have certain rules which must be observed by local authorities in the preservation of these buildings. I believe that there are grade one and grade two categories, grade one giving the best protection and grade two not quite such good protection. I am anxious about this because in many towns and cities the greedy hand of the speculator is becoming obvious, and although the Ministry of Public Building and Works has to be informed of the proposals to demolish any building, nevertheless these buildings can still be in some danger. An order may be placed on a building, but if the owner—he may be a private individual—does not keep the building in good order it can fall into a state of decay and decline to such an extent that later on no one thinks it is worth preserving, and, therefore, an important part of our historical associations and development is lost. Whatever the authorities, national or local, may think, the gem which may be lost is lost for ever.
We are also concerned about authorities which, in order to preserve a structure, building or monument, almost


knock it down and then rebuild it and say that it is the original building. On so many occasions it is clear that these developments do not retain the charm of the original structure. It is rather like a bicycle when someone says, "I have had this bicycle for 50 years and it has had only new handlebars, a new frame and new wheels, but otherwise it is the same". Of course it is not. When decay and decline set in to too great an extent in a building, methods of repair and renovation are such that we lose the original altogether and the new is not worth having and is nothing more than a sham and a fake. This is all the more important because we all know that up and down the country many historic buildings have been lost for ever. We have lost things of which we should have been the stewards and for which we should be accountable. Authorities have not been doing their job, either because they have not realised the importance of the things they have taken over, or because national planning and preservation powers are not adequate to meet modern needs.
When these buildings are in private hands, who is responsibile for their upkeep and maintenance? The Ministry may say that this is a job for the local authority and the local authority that it is a job for the owners; but the owners may say that it is not an economic proposition. The parties look to the Historic Buildings Trust and similar bodies, but while the application is being considered, the damage is going on and the rot sets in and eventually everybody agrees that the buildings should be pulled down. This is a tragedy, for history cannot be built overnight. It must be inherited and cherished and maintained and kept and handed on to future generations. In the process of change, we want to keep the blend of the past, the needs of the present and the demands of the future in proportion when we consider these planning matters.
We all owe a debt to the national and provincial papers for the way in which they have tried to keep the public informed of changes in planning developments and the need to preserve the past. I should like to quote from the Observer when Ian Nairn spotlighted twenty threatened towns and said:
Even new Britain is crammed full of marvellous towns. A few of them are recognised

and preserved. Many more have survived through luck or accident, even in the most unlikely locations. Slum clearance, commercial redevelopment, or road widening, or all three, threaten these places.
He goes on to mention what he calls the threatened towns whose value is misunderstood, places which he says, ought to be safeguarded in 1965.
I pay tribute to the local newspapers who have an important job in this respect, in all matters of development of our highways and byways and communities in the preservation of what is worth preserving. There were three articles in one of my local newspapers, the Sheffield Telegraph, in recent weeks which highlighted problems which face places such as Salisbury, Canterbury and Exeter, many threatened by insufficient consultation with the public and local residents.
We want to ensure that we have proper redevelopment of our communities and rehabilitation of areas. We want to resolve the conflicts between property developers and those who are concerned with speculation. We have also to consider the responsibility of the local planning authorities. Local authorities sometimes give too little information to the Press and are not clear about the protective provisions which cover the preservation of buildings, and developers are not always clear about where they stand in law.
I think we ought to realise that if we want to preserve the character of an area we do not merely want to copy the past. Every age must make its own contribution to the future, and in years to come we should be able to say that this is the contribution of architecture, and planning, and layout, and development of our communities which has the characteristics of the twentieth century, characteristics of which we will be proud.
This is something which must be considered by local people when they are developing areas for which they have responsibility. I think it is important that local people, as the custodians of the present and the future, should, as far as possible in their planning and development, try to retain the characteristics and the traditions of their community. These are proud things which ought not to disappear. In all


these things there must be local consultation so that the associations and experiences of the past can be preserved where they are worth preserving, and handed on to the future.
It depends, also, on the atmosphere and the feeling which a place can create. It depends on past associations. It depends vitally for its existence on the care and concern of local people. I think that this is the best safeguard, the only safeguard, for the preservation of things which really count, because if local people stand by unaware of what is happening, indifferent to what is happening, apathetic about their responsibilities, not knowing the rules which they can enforce if they have a concern for their community, past associations will be lost. We must ensure that local communities care, and show concern, for the things which our forefathers loved and held in great regard in years gone by.
What can be done for the preservation of these places? I have paid tribute to the Press. Both the national and the provincial Press have done, and can do, a great job in these matters by spotlighting some of the problems and pointing, out to the public the dangers of reckless development. In the area with which I am concerned, the East Midlands, there is a local paper, the Newark Advertiser and there are the Nottingham evening and morning papers, and the Chronicle Advertiser operating in the Sherwood Forest area. All these editors and journalists know the traditions, the background and the characteristics of the areas in which their papers circulate, and they are the principal custodians of their inheritance.
In the area with which I am concerned there are lots of historical associations, earthworks, and siegeworks threatened by gravel works, and so on, and history is being swept away week by week. We must review our regulations and laws to make sure that these things are protected. I think that we ought to do this to assure local communities that all that can be done is being done to protect the things which we really value.
I think we have to realise that in protecting the past and in making sure that our communities are balanced and suited

to the needs of the future, mere legislation is not enough, whether it is legislation from the Ministry, or from the local authorities. First and foremost, we must awaken in our people a deep concern for the past and warn them of the responsibility which they bear to coming generations. We must make them realise that once a thing has gone it cannot be replaced, and that development stays with us for a long time and can haunt us in the future. This is a very important responsibility.
I believe that in these matters the Ministry and local authorities are in the front line for action. I should like to see many more local authorities, through their museum committees and historical associations, engendering in our younger people an awareness of the problems and of the dangers which they face. They can do a great deal to engender greater interest and concern.
I want to refer briefly to industrial archaeology, because this is also an important matter, which is in keeping with local traditions to a great extent. All these things must be our concern for the future.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Can my hon. Friend tell us, from his experiences in the South-West or the East Midlands, whether the preservation of archaeological values has ever arisen with the development of private property? I always have the feeling that whenever private development takes place—in housing, particularly—there is a complete and utter disregard for planning, in its intrinsic sense, as opposed to development by local authorities. Can my hon. Friend tell me—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Sir Samuel Storey): The hon. Member cannot use an intervention to make a speech.

Mr. Bishop: Industrial archaeology is also important because in every community there are buildings which should be preserved, in the background and setting with which they have been associated for so long. It is pleasant to know that colleges of advanced technology, amongst other places, can play their part. I know that in Bristol a college of advanced technology has been running lectures on this subject, so that people may have a greater awareness of their


responsibilities. In weekend conferences, and so on, lecturers have made their contributions to the discussions.
Some local things, like a Severn Trow, have been preserved, to be shown in their proper setting. I also want to refer to changing trends in our social life. We realise that in the past transport was limited, and people rarely went beyond the confines of their villages or local communities. This made it very easy to trace one's local ancestors. But things are changing, and there is now a far greater tendency for people to move. A moving population means that there are greater changes in each community. At one time, if one found that a family was living in an area in the seventeenth century one could probably trace the same family back to the thirteenth century.

Mr. Palmer: I thought that my hon. Friend referred just now to an old restaurant in Bristol and called it the Severn Trow. Is it not the Llandoger Trow?

Mr. Bishop: I was not referring to that building but to the trow which operates in the River Severn. There must be a proper setting for it. These relics should be preserved.
In the past people and their descendants stayed in the same area for centuries, and it was easy for them to know the traditions and characteristics of the places in which they and their forefathers lived. Nowadays, however, people move quickly into new areas and into different parts of the country, and even outside the country, and it is not so easy for local communities, settled in new towns or even in new housing developments, to realise that the areas into which they have moved have traditions and histories about which they should learn. It is essential that this should be done, in order to maintain the characteristics to which I have referred, which are important in preserving the tone of the area. Therefore a better knowledge of the environment of a place gives us a better understanding, and leads to people settling into a locality more quickly.
We know the problem of those who move from slum dwellings and sub-

standard houses to new housing estates and say, "we have been here for several years and do not feel settled". Often they show a constant desire to go back to the place from which they came, despite the fact that the accommodation there is sub-standard. In their new communities—and I know some in the area of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South; and we all know these places in our county areas—people often find it difficult to settle down and feel that they have roots. It is through traditions and history that they can have a greater feeling of being at one with the area and have a civic consciousness in both local and national elections. If one feels that one belongs to a place one has a greater pride in it.

Mr. Atkinson: We have always said that an integral part of family life in this country has been communication between members of the family. It seems to me that since the coming of Dr. Beeching, the Beeching era, opportunities for the family to communicate with one another have been shattered, because he has made it virtually impossible for younger members of the family to visit older relatives and for older people to go and see their grandchildren. If they are not able to use these supersonic motorways and have to rely on old-fashioned transport, there must be a deterioration of communication—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must once again call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he must not make a speech on an intervention.

Mr. Bishop: I was making the point that it is because people do not feel they have any roots in the area to which they have gone and have no knowledge of its past and traditions that they do not settle in very quickly and there is often a desire to go back to whence they came.
We often say that these matters concern town planners, that we need consultants, and so on. I appreciate that we do, but we not only need them but landscapers, architects and transport experts to advise on traffic flow and do away with bottlenecks, to suggest bypasses and diversions. We also need economists and sociologists. We need people who have an understanding of families and their problems and their


need to feel closely knit to the community to which they have gone. And these experts and their recommendations have to be fitted in against the local situation which is best known by local people.
We wonder sometimes how we can avoid the ghastly prospect of immense concrete and steel motorways, highways and race-tracks ploughing through our land and threatening the destruction of a thousand years of history and all we hold dear overnight. It seems to me that there is a real danger here.

Mr. William Yates: In view of the most important speech which the hon. Gentleman is making concerning the future of the country, I do not see a sufficient number of Members in the House paying attention. I would therefore call attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

12.20 a.m.

Mr. R. W. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In an interesting debate this evening, we are being subjected to this rather childish interference with the business of the House. Is it possible for you to rule that it be recorded in HANSARD that, after many Counts of this House, we can find only two hon. Members on the Opposition benches? This childish behaviour is indefensible and, because of it, a whole train of thought can be lost.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Dr. Horace King): The hon. Member knows that what he has said is not a point of order.

Mr. Bishop: This is a very important subject, and I am grateful for the attention which I have been having from my hon. Friends.
I was asking how we can possibly avoid having ghastly motorways and main highways going through our towns and cities on high-level concrete and steel constructions which tend to smash the characteristics of our local areas. We wonder sometimes whether we are not going to be slaves to the motor car and to our modern transport system.
I do not want to digress, but it may well mean there ought to be greater consideration given to the use of our railways in order to avoid this. It is important, as we have been told, that transport should be the servant of man and not the other way round. These are matters which must be concerning all of us, and I think we also have to have regard to the changing pattern of our national affairs. Whether we like it or not, and whether hon. Gentlemen opposite like it or not, we are bound to lose a certain amount of our freedom in order eventually to regain it. We need more control in some respects in order that unwarranted, unnecessary and undesirable development does not take place and that we do not regret it later on.
The future of our towns, historic and otherwise, must be fitted in with our economic pattern at the same time. The proposed regional development units are important in this respect. The planning boards are intended to channel the economic and industrial interests through to central Government, and these, of course, will affect the needs of our own towns and cities.
Therefore, we must make sure that housing, industrial and cultural developments are sited in the right places. I appeal here to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to have regard to the economic situation of the country, because regional planning boards can mean that in future we shall have new towns and areas which we do not envisage at the present time, and our economic development and industrial development will have to be decided upon, by which I mean the areas to which we want people to go and the areas where we want to restrict development. When that has been decided within the economic and financial framework of our economy, then the local communities and planners must start work.
It is, therefore, important that in changes of boundaries and in local planning considerations, the industrial and the economic position of our country has some place. Otherwise, we shall start developments in an area and find that there are not enough houses or population to serve the industries which are later established there. We want to avoid


these snags which we have experienced in the past.
I have mentioned the important responsibilities of members of our planning authorities. Very often, these bodies are made up of well-meaning men and women in local government at county level as well as at lower levels in the local government structure, but they are not experts in the proper sense of the word. I made the point only a few minutes ago that planners need to be expert in so many ways. They need to be planning experts, traffic experts, landscape architects, sociologists, and so on. I am sorry to feel that too few of our towns employ planning consultants. This is an expert job, and the local people can play their part by giving of their local feeling and experience about the characteristics of the place where development is to proceed.
I hope that more towns will employ consultants to advise them from expert knowledge. I am pleased to see that three new chairs of economics of planning development, urban design and urban sociology have been established at Manchester University. This shows a growing awareness of the need for trained people.
How can we best use the people whom we have? Even the best equipped local authority, and certainly the smaller authorities, can employ only a certain number of trained people. Local authorities certainly do not have the staff to advise them on their planning needs. We often get assemblies or forums of well-meaning architects, some expert, some amateur, telling the authorities what to do, and the authorities are not helped to any great extent by this. I suggest, therefore, that we encourage more people to undertake training for the profession of town and country planning. This should become a greater feature of our universities and colleges as the places where training can be given.
There is, of course, the need for experience in local work at the same time. Local pride must be taken into account in these questions. We need also public relations activities if we are to avoid some of the troubles. We know what happens in local government. A local council is asked to approve planning development for new buildings and a

new outline in the community. Then the local people hear of it and protest. The authorities are held up while planning objections are heard and the Minister has to consider the matter, whereas if local authorities would take local people into their confidence, often through the Press, many of these troubles might be avoided.
Planning for the future and for development is really a matter for teamwork, for experts at the highest level and for those responsible lower down the local government structure. It is a matter of concern to the local residents and ratepayers who have to foot the bill and to the people who have to live in the development. All three levels should be consulted and taken into the confidence of those who want development in an area.
Amongst all this, we want to make sure that our towns, cities and villages of the future are a blend not only of the present, but of the past as well. There should be a much closer working relationship between Ministries, local authorities and the people, and we must have greater regard to the need to protect the past. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister tonight to assure me that he is aware of the machinery which he needs for the future to safeguard the buildings and monuments which we have taken over. In all these things, the public must play their part. All the legislation in the world is of no use—whether at the highest level or at local level—unless the people in our communities show concern and care for the things which they have inherited.
I want to make sure that in the future we have answers to all the points which I have raised, or at least to some of them—the need to avoid piecemeal development, the need to avoid ribbon development, the need for greater consultation between authorities, the need to have regard to the regional planning and development of our country through the new planning boards, and the need also to avoid some of the worst aspects of parish pump politics and outlook which bedevils some of our local government areas. I believe that we should have regard at the same time to the economic and financial needs of the country, so that we can get an assurance,


at the lower levels where planning takes place, that the money will be available, that the planning permission will be available, and that, when development takes places, it can go ahead with proper planning and with proper priorities, so that we do not have to stop and go, with all the bad effects which that will have on the development of our communities in the future.
I would ask the Minister to give us some assurance on these matters, because they concern not only my own constituency, but also those of many hon. Members here tonight. We want to be assured on these points, in order that we can go to our communities and say that we are doing our bit nationally to help them and that it is now a matter of their helping themselves with the machinery and the legislation which we may provide for them.

12.33 a.m.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I welcome this opportunity to address the House on town and country planning and its relation to local government. I am sorry that it is at this late hour. I want—

Mr. William Yates: The hon. Member knows that on the Consolidated Fund Bill it is the greatest privilege we have that, as long as we are in our places, we can seek to defend the rights of our constituents. He should not worry about the lateness of the hour; he should proceed.

Mr. Perry: I am glad to have the assurance of the hon. Member for The Wrekin(Mr. William Yates) that I can go on. This is a matter which concerns all back-benchers and all hon. Members of the House. I am glad to have heard the fine speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark(Mr. Bishop). He said at the start that he intended to speak briefly, and I am sorry he did not give us one of his lengthier ones.
I am glad that I have this opportunity. I prepared a speech on Monday night on the Milner Holland Committee's Report, I prepared one on Tuesday for the immigration discussion, and on neither occasion was I able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not want to hear the hon. Gentleman's political biography. He should return to the subject of the present debate.

Mr. Perry: I accept your correction, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I am very glad this evening to be able to talk about the Consolidated Fund and its reference to town and country planning and local government. I say this because I have had 30 years' membership on a local authority in London, and at present I am a member of the council of the new London borough of Wandsworth. I think that with that 30 years' experience and the information which I can impart to the House, as well as the information which I can collect from the House, I shall be able to learn something this evening.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South(Mr. Corfield) put down this subject on the Paper. I was most grieved when I discovered, at the last minute, that he was not present to present his case. I am sure that he is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields(Mr. Blenkinsop), who took his place at the last minute and presented us with this subject.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman said that he was glad to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, and no doubt his remarks will be listened to and acted upon by the Government. Does he appreciate, however, that it is a scandal and a disgrace that Scottish hon. Members on this side of the House who wish to speak about planning in relation to local government must do so in the absence of Scottish representation in the Government? Is he aware that on the benches opposite there is no Secretary of State, no Minister of State and no Under-Secretaries to answer or listen to the points we wish to make and the questions we wish to put? This is a scandal and a disgrace and a discrimination against Scottish hon. Members.

Mr. Perry: I recall that a few evenings ago we had a long discussion on the Highland Development(Scotland) Bill and I believe that the hon. Gentleman took part in it. Tonight I wish to take part in this debate. I am sorry if that does not meet his wishes, but I believe


that he only recently came in. I have been here since 2.30 this afternoon and I am glad to have this opportunity to speak.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before the hon. Gentleman proceeds—he spoke about my hon. Friend not having been here for very long. I think that the hon. Gentleman joined us at the last election. Perhaps he does not realise that he is unwittingly taking part in an exercise designed to destroy tomorrow's business and so to get the Government out of an extremely difficult situation. I hope he will realise that he is prolonging matters with his hon. Friends and is taking part in a calculated effort to destroy tomorrow's business to prevent a valuable Bill from being passed.

Mr. Perry: I am not aware that the Government are in any difficulty. I imagine that after the results of the two by-elections the boot is on the other foot.

The Paymaster-General(Mr. George Wigg): On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to impute a motive to my hon. Friends when the hon. Gentleman has himself not been present? Is it also in order for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart(Mr. Edward M. Taylor) to castigate my hon. and right hon. Friends without having given them notice that he was going to do so?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Had anything happened which was out of order I should have taken note of it.

Mr. William Molloy: Further to that point of order. Is it permissible for hon. Gentlemen opposite who have longer experience of the procedures of the House to give absolutely contradictory advice to new hon. Members on this side of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Perry: To proceed with the subject under discussion, without agreeing with the entire policy of the former Government on this issue, I do appreciate the inclusion in their London Government Act of a provision which gave town planning authority to the new London boroughs. Prior to that autho-

rity being given everything had to go to the L.C.C. In Wandsworth we consider that, under the new Administration, things will work out better in relation to town planning—with my right hon. Friend now in charge of the Ministry—than it did under the former Administration.
However, the problems facing the new London boroughs in regard to town planning are serious. Many of them are built up areas, without room to spread or to build houses. They just do not have space in which to develop. These difficulties make it hard for us to build houses and settle our development problems. We feel that unless we have the support of the Ministry we will not be able to carry through schemes for town planning and other developments. I hope, therefore, that the Ministry will see eye to eye with us when we submit schemes.
I feel sure, from the statements so far made by the Government, that in the long run the new London boroughs will have a much better chance of solving their problems under the new Administration than under the former one. We have been afraid, in places like Battersea, that certain activities would continue. For example, when we had new housing estate and developments in preparation under the former Administration the former Administration the Ministry of Transport would suddenly submit designs for huge motorways through our developments. We hear of plans and ideas, and of developers coming along wanting to do this and that with a certain part of the borough. Before we know anything about it, plans have been laid somewhere and we have a fait accompli. Those who want to do these things will now have to apply to the local authority, and we are very glad to have these powers.
The Evening Standard tonight had a description of the motorways that it is proposed will go through the new London boroughs. Formerly one of them was shown as going right through Clapham Junction, practically destroying the shopping centre altogether. That would be a very serious matter to the traders and others there, and on their behalf I hope that the construction of these motorways will not affect those interests at Clapham Junction. If these motorways go through, they will destroy rehousing work in Battersea and other parts of London on


which millions of £s has been spent since the war. Only by co-operation between the Ministry and the new London boroughs can we hope to achieve the results we want.
The trouble is the dearth of land, particularly in the new London borough of Wandsworth, and I have been glad to be reassured on many occasions by the Minister about the development of railway land in our borough. I hope that we shall be able to use that land, that it will not be handed over to private developers, but that, when it produces its plans, the London borough of Wandsworth will be able to use it. There are many, many acres of spare railway land, in addition to the space needed for the new Covent Garden Market, which can be used for fine housing in Wandsworth.
Negotiations were entered into more than three years ago by firms called Overland Investments and Railways Sites Ltd. for the disposal of a large amount of railway land at Battersea for private development, without the local authority knowing anything about it. It was not until planning application was made to the London County Council that the local authority got to know that this land was to be used for building luxury flats at rents of anything up to £10 a week. In Battersea we have a housing waitinglist of 5,000, and we want to use any spare land there might be. If the Minister can give us the power to develop this land, we shall be very grateful.
It has been suggested that there are small pockets of railway land near the industrial sites that could be handed over for local government housing, but we do not want the poorest sites in the worst places being given to us while the best sites, facing the river and Battersea Park, are handed to the private developers. We want all the sites, good or bad, so that we can develop them in accordance with the needs of the people.
Another thing that I want to bring to your notice—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not address me. Anything he wants to say must be addressed through the Chair to the Minister whom the hon. Gentleman is seeking to persuade.

Mr. Perry: I sincerely apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was at fault. I wish to draw to the Minister's attention that Battersea owns some land outside the borough at Morden, Surrey. We have 125 acres there which we use for burial purposes, for a crematorium, and for a sports ground. Fifteen acres of this land are now lying idle and will not be used for burial purposes because, as is well known, cremation is taking the place of earth burial. On two occasions, we applied to the previous Minister for permission to use this land for housing. We could house over 200 Battersea families on it and alleviate our housing problem. There were two public inquiries and, on both occasions, our application was turned down. On the other side of the road, there are large blocks of flats and houses, yet our application for permission to build houses was refused. I hope that we shall receive more favourable treatment from the present Minister.
We have sold land to some of the interests who opposed our applications. We sold land to the Surrey County Council for a Catholic school, a sports ground and for a county council health clinic. The sales were made at reasonable prices, district valuers' prices, but, when we made our own application to build houses on the rest of the land, we were opposed and turned down.
Relations between the Minister and the local authorities of London are far better now than they were under the previous Administration. In the past, a local authority has had a job to get permission to develop sites, but a private developer could get it practically overnight. We look forward to a greatly changed attitude towards local authority enterprise. I am glad that the Minister will do what we have wanted done for so many years and will not give preference to private developers to develop railway land and private sites. Thousands of people are homeless. People are living five to a room.

Mr. Graham Page: When permission was granted to the private developers, they did develop for housing purposes, did they not?

Mr. Perry: Yes, possibly they did, and they also developed for office purposes. I am emphasising the need in London for houses and flats built by local authorities


at rents which people can pay. People earning £13 or £15 a week cannot pay rents of 7, 8, 10 or 15 guineas a week. Somebody came to see me this week who told me that he had been in a flat for 22 years, he had been taken to court and lost his case, and he had been told by the magistrate that he must pay 5, 6 or 7 guineas a week out of his wage of £13 10s.
This is the sort of thing happening in Battersea. This is the sort of case we want dealt with. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh about people who earn small wages and cannot pay high rents, but many people in London earn well under the national average and endure housing conditions which are a disgrace. Any London Member will testify to the number of bad housing cases brought to his attention.
I could take the hon. Member for Crosby(Mr. Graham Page) to a place in Battersea where a coloured family of five lives in one room. Two oil heaters stand in the corner and they have to cook and sleep in that room as well. It is a six-roomed house. That is overcrowding all right. But when the local authority inspector visits the place he realises that these people have nowhere else to go. That is the sort of situation existing in London. It is all right for people to scoff and sneer at the complaints we make about this, but there are hundreds of such cases.

Mr. Graham Page: rose—

Mr. Perry: I am sorry. I gave way to you. You interrupted me.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member did not give way to me.

Mr. Perry: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I give way to the hon. Member for Crosby.

Mr. Graham Page: Is not the hon. Member aware that the Ministry, under the last Government, had to intervene to prevent the L.C.C. giving too many permissions for office developments in Battersea and to oblige the local council to provide more housing where the L.C.C. was giving permission for office developments?

Mr. Perry: I am not aware of those circumstances. I will look into it. But

I do not know that there are many sites in Battersea that could be used for housing and which are still owned by private developers. There has not been a lot of office development there. Most of the development has been undertaken by the local authority. There has been only a small amount of office development. There is no doubt that priority must be given to housing development at rents that people can pay. People in low income groups cannot be charged high rents.

Mr. Molloy: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the terrible housing problem in London was further aggravated by the Tory Rent Act? Would not he further agree that repeal of that Act will go some way to meeting the housing problem?

Mr. Perry: I agree. The Milner Holland Report sets out these details in full. I shall not discuss that, however, because we debated it on Monday. But housing conditions in many parts of London, particularly areas like Battersea, are so bad that we must have any spare railway land or any other sites that we own for council house development. Priority must be given to local government housing. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will do all he can to see that the local authorities are given priority to develop sites they own. This problem is so serious it must not be scoffed, jeered or laughed at. I do not doubt that hon. Members opposite do not live four or five in a room.[HON. MEMBERS: "Do you?"] They are not threatened with eviction. But many people in my constituency have been threatened with eviction and many of them do live three, four and five in a room. Anything which the Government can do about local government and town and country development will be gladly received.

12.56 a.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: We have had a debate for which I think there is only one honourable explanation—that hon. Members opposite have shown enormous distrust of the ability of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to carry out his planning functions. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) took nearly an


hour to express his fears that his right hon. Friend would not carry out his functions and might not have enough powers, and the hon. Member for Battersea, South(Mr. Perry) spoke in the same vein.
It is not my intention to stand between the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in his efforts to reassure them that he proposes to use his planning powers and to try to meet some of the very serious accusations which have been made against his Ministry. I had intended to withdraw the Motion, because it seemed clear that there was not much intention to make this a serious debate on planning in which, as the hon. Member for South Shields(Mr. Blenkinsop) was kind enough to say, I have had a considerable interest for a number of years—long before I became a politician.
One thing which makes me suspicious about advice on planning is when the hon. Member for South Shields tells me what is wrong and what is right. When all is said and done, the great majority of the aspects of planning are matters of opinion. Occasionally something sticks up like a sore thumb and is clearly wrong, but the occasions on which one can say that a specific development is definitely and clearly right for a piece of land must be very rare indeed. When people start talking about right and wrong in an absolute sense in relation to planning, I greatly suspect their judgment and the value of what they have to contribute.
The point which I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman—and hope springs eternal that we shall get a serious answer, despite the rest of the debate—is that his Department for many years, at any rate since the end of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, has been responsible both for planning and for local government, and I am told that one of the reasons why the planning functions were not transferred to the new Ministry of Land and Natural Resources was the feeling that the right hon. Gentleman's connections with local government made it appropriate that they should remain—because the local authorities are planning authorities—with the right hon. Gentleman.
When I put down a Question earlier to the Prime Minister about the func-

tions of the new Ministry, and particularly about how they would affect the right hon. Gentleman's functions, it was made clear that the town and country planning functions would remain with the right hon. Gentleman, and when we had the first Transfer of Functions Order it was noticeable how meticulously any Section of the National Parks Act—which by and large has been transferred to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources—were preserved to the right hon. Gentleman if they had any planning functions attached to them at all. We had the somewhat ludicrous situation in which the new Ministry was being set up to look after the National Parks without any of the powers to control the planning within them. That may have been consistent with the Prime Minister's proposal that planning functions should remain with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me how on earth this can be an improvement in the planning functions and how it will enable the right hon. Gentleman to improve our planning techniques in seeking to achieve what we all want to achieve. How on earth can it improve the situation to split these functions between two Ministries?
When we came to the debate on the Machinery of Government Bill on 9th December, we had confusion worse confounded, because the Chancellor of the Duchy told us amongst other things that the new Minister of Land and Natural Resources would have under his control:
The problems of commuters and the horrible conditions in which many people have to go to and from work, the congested towns putting great strain on services and on transport, the need to preserve the green belt and to prevent the kind of urban sprawl which took place years ago leaving permanent marks on the countryside are all part of the responsibility of the Minister who will advise the Government about them.
There was another passage:
With this new Ministry, we are trying to bring together with a body of knowledge about land and its uses in a way which has never previously been brought together under one Minister.
We were also told:
The Minister of Housing and Local Government will want land for housing and for new towns, and so on. The Secretary of State for Education and Science will be building new schools and there will be new universities and so on. In general, all Ministries


wanting land have used the machinery available to them to get what they wanted, subject to planning permission, but not subject to any general oversight or assessment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 1569–66.]

Mr. William Yates: I am sorry to say that there are going to be no new universities at all. This is the great mistake.

Mr. Corfield: I was only quoting from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy. But the point I want to make is this; that, of course, the right hon. Gentleman or his Department and his predecessors have always been responsible for planning permission for all these projects. As far as I recollect, there is a procedure called the Circular Hundred procedure, by which, even though the Crown does not require planning permission, other Government Departments submit to the right hon. Gentleman any clash of opinion they may have with the local planning authority, and he, as far as I recollect, gives a decision in very much the same way as he would on a planning appeal.
What, again, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is: in what possible way is the green belt to be better preserved, are these school sites to be better selected, by bringing in the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Land and Natural Resources? Also, in what way is he going to bring him in, because this, after all, is what the Chancellor of the Duchy told us this Ministry exists for? We want to know exactly what his right hon. Friend's function is in this connection, because on the face of it—and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will accuse me of exaggerating—it does not appear to increase efficiency to bring in two Ministries where there was only one before. Of course, any form of planning decision which crosses the boundary between England and the Principality brings in yet another Minister. For example, with regard to many of the right hon. Gentleman's water functions, the River Severn does not conveniently follow the boundary between the two countries; nor, indeed, does the River Wye. There will also, no doubt, be certain new town development schemes where the receiving area will be on one side and the exporting area on the other, and here we are bringing in yet another Minister to take part in these decisions.
What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman again is: how on earth does this increase the efficiency with which he can do his job, when, as I understand it, he is primarily responsible for town and country planning? If he is not, then I hope he will enlighten us, because it is leading to a great deal of confusion. I would be the first to admit with the advantage of hindsight, that a great many decisions since the war, both local and Ministerial, could have been better made, but mistakes will go on being made and it is pure arrogance to pretend that they will not. But what we want to do is to get an improvement all the time, with fewer and fewer mistakes, and this is surely something which is not going to be brought about by bringing in a multitude of Ministers, all with interests in only part of the problem. As I say, I think it is most important that we should be told how the right hon. Gentleman's functions are being improved and helped by this spread of functions. Also, we want to know exactly where the dividing line comes between him and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources.
The other point that I wanted to raise was the question of, so to speak, the broader strategic planning decisions marching hand in hand with local government administration. This is something which—if there is a case for the planning functions remaining with the right hon. Gentleman—is surely only to be supported if it is clearly shown that the planning decisions do go hand in hand with local government administration. I want to put to him a particular case. I apologise if it has a certain parish pump atmosphere about it, but I want to cite particularly the position in and around the City of Bristol.
Here we have a city with a population—in greater Bristol—of something like 500,000. We have a green belt which has two functions, one part of which is to prevent the coalescing of the two quite different cities of Bath and Bristol, and the other part of which is to prevent the sprawl of Bristol to any excessive degree northwards into Gloucestershire, and in due course, no doubt, there will be an approved green belt in Somerset.
As a result of the Local Boundaries Commission we have a situation in which the suburbs of Bristol in Gloucestershire


are to remain in Gloucestershire. If the right hon. Gentleman will take a trip through Bristol, which, no doubt, he has done, I defy him to tell us where Gloucestershire begins and Bristol ends, or the other way round, purely by observation on the ground. I can show him one or two landmarks, but he would have to look for them. Nevertheless we have a situation in which in one great city we get first the city, urban Bristol, and surrounding it an urban development of precisely the same type divided into two parts, two contiguous urban areas form parts of two R.D.Cs. Two such areas are U.D.C.s on their own.
It seems to me obvious that unless we tighten the green belt around Bristol we shall get other urban areas in Gloucestershire building themselves up, and striving to build themselves up into another solid urban mass striving for county borough status. If we do get that, I suggest we shall probably get the worst possible local government administration we know of. It is something we have had to put up with for historical reasons in the Black Country where we had to consolidate a very large number of urban districts and non-county boroughs into a number of county boroughs simply because Birmingham, which developed differently from London, was dominant, and the L.C.C. or G.L.C. sort of solution could not be adopted—as an overriding local authority. Birmingham was larger than the other urban areas and authorities and would have been predominant. London developed quite differently.
In Bristol the same thing will happen, with urban local authorities side by side, with Bristol dominant, and it will be much more difficult to apply the L.C.C. approach. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, in looking at the boundaries of the smaller urban areas, and therefore looking at the function of the green belt, he is, I think, in making the green belt decision, ignoring the local government side of the matter, because with the green belt restricted northwards from Bristol, leaving a lot of white land which undoubtedly will gradually be developed into one urban mass, he is inviting the worst possible build up from the local government, administrative point of view.
I hope he is going to give us some explanation, and, secondly, give us some idea of how he sees this sort of development from both the local government and the planning points of view. I hope he will treat my questions seriously. I think the country wants an answer on how the planning functions of his Ministry will be strengthened by diversification between it and that of his right hon. Friend the Minister for Land and Natural Resources. If it is not being strengthened, could he give some other good reasons why there should be this division, or proposals by which he could put the matter right? Because we on this side of the House believe, and a great many of the professional bodies which take an interest in planning believe very firmly, that this Government have weakened rather than strengthened the ordinary planning powers, by diversifying between more than one Ministry.

1.10 a.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government(Mr. Richard Crossman): I will try in the short time at my disposal—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman has plenty of time."]—to deal with the very large number of points raised. Maybe the most convenient method will be to work backwards and start with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South(Mr. Corfield).
The hon. Gentleman began his speech with some slight arrogance about it. After all, the hon. Gentleman who had proposed to start the debate failed the House. He abstained. But we came to answer him. After a great deal of cajoling and urging—

Mr. Corfield: The right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, know—at least, his hon. Friend will so inform him—that I took the trouble to ring up his hon. Friend—I thought I was doing the right hon. Gentleman a favour—to tell him what we were going to do. If there has been any slip-up, the row is between the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend and not between the right hon. Gentleman and me.

Mr. Crossman: I must point out that this is a subject of the widest interest to the House and many hon. Members on this side of the House had come here keen and anxious to take part in the


debate. They were profoundly disappointed when, suddenly, those who were promoting the debate drew out, apparently for no proper reason. Then there came an astonishing intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone(Mr. Hogg), who burst into the Chamber to announce some strange talk about the reason why the debate was taking place. I was relieved that at the end the hon. Gentleman came here and, in his charming way, put to me a number of questions which will take a time to answer. The hon. Gentleman has enabled us to have from his side at least a contribution with which we can deal. After I have dealt with that, I will deal with the contribution from the Government side.
I cordially agree with one thing that the hon. Gentleman said. He began by saying that there is no absolute right and no absolute wrong in planning. I would say to him that there is no absolute right and no absolute wrong in planning a green belt or in making a planning decision. There is no absolute right and no absolute wrong in Whitehall either. All these things are questions of balance and proportion and choice of evils and choice of advantages.
I will start with the question which the hon. Gentleman raised about the Bristol conurbation. I wish that he had given me notice of it. On his other questions, of which I had some idea, I was able to get some information and prepare myself in advance. But I have to reply as it were off the cuff about Bristol. Therefore, if the reply is not in full detail it is partly his fault for not warning me in advance.
This is an issue of what we do—first of all, I talk in terms of the Local Government Commission—what we do in terms of boundaries in respect of great boroughs which begin to splay and sprawl into counties, when we decide—or how one decides—whether an area which overspills into a county has reached a point of contiguity with the outlying districts, and may be amalgamated with areas which have become part of it. That is something which every boundary Commission has to worry about, and which every Minister has to concern himself about who has to decide what to do about a boundary Commission's report.
I would tell the hon. Gentleman that when I looked at the Local Government Commission's Report on Bristol I was a little surprised that so little thought had been given to the possibility of extending Bristol's frontiers to take in some of the new urban areas which have grown up around the city. The reason given, I understand, was that there was no great interest in this in Bristol. As he knows, there were eleven points of reference, or factors, which the Local Government Commission could balance in taking account of the matter. One of them was local interest. Another was contiguity. Another was genuine economic interest binding the areas together.
I agree with the Commission, and that is why I upheld its decision. In the case of Bristol there are these considerable suburbs outside, and although in certain cases they nearly join Bristol, it can be said that in terms of their life one can still distinguish strangely enough those which lie in genuine Bristol and those which lie outside. This is a somewhat subjective judgment. It is one of the most difficult sorts of judgment for a Minister or a boundary Commission to make.
I have had trouble in Bath, where I announced a decision. I did the same thing for Bath—but against the Local Government—as the Commission had done for Bristol. I said that the people in the suburbs did not really belong to Bath, that they were living a separate, different life. I said that those were genuine villages which had expanded. I said that these communities had their own village integrity which had grown up outside Bath, that they were not just parts which had splayed out from the county borough. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is extremely difficult to come to any conclusions. That is why it is possible for the Minister to agree or disagree with the Local Government Commission and for hon. Members opposite to disagree with the Minister, and no one will ever say that one is absolutely right or absolutely wrong on this.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are great dangers about the green belt, and certainly the future which he foresaw is not one which I should like


to see. We have been faced with tremendous pressures, as he will appreciate, and I hope that I have made it clear that in making our decision it was not our intention that it should lead to the awkward or wholly deleterious development which he suggested. I am grateful that he has given me the opportunity once again to re-assert—and I hope that it will be printed in the local Press—that that is certainly not something that we want to see and that we certainly regard it as essential to keep the green belt in this area and not to allow a splaying and sprawling.
The hon. Gentleman went from questions about Bristol and the green belt to questions about my Ministry. I had a shrewd suspicion that he would, but he was courteous enough to inform me anyway. He was bound to raise the subject because he always does and the Opposition always do, put these interesting questions about the relationship between my Ministry and the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. I am only disappointed that I was not asked questions about our relationship with the First Secretary and the Department of Economic Affairs and with the Board of Trade and one or two other things which I could have dealt with in the course of a quiet evening together. I will therefore take the opportunity to explain one or two things, because the hon. Gentleman is obviously not clear about the structure of the new Government and how it is working and why it is working so smoothly.
When I am asked why my Ministry is giving certain of its functions, I can say to the hon. Gentleman, because he understands and knows the Ministry, that even though I have given up much, there remains a very large Ministry, a very scattered empire. I am always discovering new corners of the empire of which I am in control and of which I was not aware until I poked my nose around a building in Tothill Street. The amount of things of which I am still in control is large enough.
If I have lost control of Wales and do not have to make that monthly weekend visit which Englishmen before me who had been selected to win the confidence of the Welsh had to make, I thank God that the Prime Minister should have had the wisdom to say to

me, "You shall be the first Englishman liberated from the responsibility of trying to placate the Welsh after refusing to give them what they have asked for and what has now been given to them".
To be perfectly serious, this has given a good deal of satisfaction in Wales. I think that the process will go further and that Wales will be able to evolve the same kind of administrative structure as Scotland. I happen to believe in this kind of decentralisation where there is a genuine culture and a genuine difference, because there is everything to be said, even in a small country like the United Kingdom, for giving not regional, for we do not go as far as that, but national decentralisation. I think that this will be found to be advantageous.
The only question the Welsh have asked is whether they could not have more powers rather than fewer, and whether, as I heard yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will cede his powers in the way that my Ministry has so gladly and so generously ceded our powers to the Secretary of State for Wales. I have not felt the loss of these powers in any way. I have felt only a great relief. Nor have I found the faintest difficulty in the relationship between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and myself. This new arrangement seems to have developed perfectly smoothly, and it is difficult to remember the time before there was such a situation. This has become a most natural part of the Whitehall arrangements and our relationships outside.
I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman will squabble with me about this extremely sensible decision not merely to talk vaguely about decentralisation for Wales, but to do something about it and to set up a proper Department for Wales with a Secretary of State. The arrangement has worked extremely well and I am grateful for not having to continue to try to do the job of Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Wales.
There are two other sides to this Ministry which the hon. Gentleman did not mention. From my point of view, I say quite candidly, there is more uncertainty about the relationship of my Ministry—and there will be in future—with the Department of Economic Affairs than


about that between us and the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources.
The Ministry of Land and Natural Resources arose to start with out of one simple and practical fact. I am beginning to realise the experience that a Minister has in launching one major Bill, and there is another major Bill coming, on the Land Commission. Again I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources is responsible for this tremendous measure of reform which, when it is completed, will alter the balance of power in the Government. When we have created a Land Commission, it will in itself be a very important factor in planning.
I am not going to predict what the exact balance of power will be in Whitehall when the Land Commission is in full operation, but it will be different from today, because it is not possible to create a Land Commission without making big changes in the structure of Whitehall. It will not be possible to have it all under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government as it was before.
That is the basic reason why there are two Ministries. It is because we have foresight. The Government foresee that if big changes are being made it is necessary to create the structure into which the changes can fit. There is this difference between hon. Gentlemen opposite and ourselves. They did not have much interest in creating great changes. We have made more changes in Whitehall in our short time in office than they made in 13 years, or anybody did in the previous 25 years, but we did not make those changes for fun. We made them so that the great social changes outside will be carried out by an instrument in Whitehall suitable for the new things that we are going to do.
Why did we want the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources on one side of the Ministry, and the Department of Economic Affairs on the other? First, because we were creating a Land Commission to develop a new form of land control and land planning. Heaven knows the burden that I have with the day-to-day tactical control of planning, which is my main preoccupation. It is quite sufficient without my having to do the long-term strategic planning. Although I regret losing anything, I must say that on balance it is sensible.
The public ownership of water will become an important issue in the next year. We are faced this year with the likelihood of a drought. This is the second winter without rain, and it may be that the nation will have forced on it a really serious situation in which, despite the considerable improvement in the regional control of water, it will have to be controlled nationally. I give credit to my predecessors. The Ministry has slowly done work in gradually co-ordinating water to give bigger and bigger regional groupings. The fact remains, however, that the South-East, which is a relatively waterless area, is far removed from the North-West, which has plenty of water, and what we want is the national control of water. We shall find the need for this in the summer if we are faced with a major drought. The need will be not for regional grouping of water, but for its national planning.
The Minister of Land and Natural Resources is responsible, and is actively preparing plans, for the public ownership of water. That is a job which I do not do. I do the ordinary administration of water. I deal with the problems of what to do, and what instructions to give, when we have a drought, whereas my right hon. Friend deals with how to prevent a drought, by preparing plans in advance. It seems sensible that, having a Land Commission, we should ask one Minister to concentrate on the long-term job of planning ahead for water, and to ask the other Minister to do the whole time job of the day to day routine administration. The hon. Gentleman knows enough about planning administration to know that the unfortunate Minister who has to take all the detailed planning decisions, and decisions about compulsory purchase orders, has enough to do without having to plan the nationalisation of water as well. I want to give the hon. Gentleman a pretty clear explanation of how we divide our functions on that side.
On the other side, and this is where the big change has taken place, we have the Department of Economic Affairs, whose job it is to do something which has never been attempted before, and that is to promote a broad national economic plan and broad regional plans consistent with it. It is on the regional side of the D.E.A. that there comes the relationship between that Department


and ourselves. I deal with local government. My right hon. Friend deals with regional planning and regional administration. There has to be careful co-ordination, and here a great deal of thinking and action are taking place, in which we are looking ahead and trying to create new shapes and forms. He has power to create regional councils and divide the country into regional administrations, but they are being created without affecting our local authorities, whose relations with me remain the same. I am still responsible, together with my Ministry, exactly as was the case when the Conservative Government were in power, in terms of the ad hoc administration of physical planning. But it is obvious that when we have got our national plan, and when it has been broken up into six regional plans, we can begin economically to assess how we divide the nation's resources. But when this is so in terms of six or seven regional efforts, we are getting to the point where there is a new type of regional approach, which is not the same as the Whitehall approach or the local government one.
How this develops is something that we shall watch. We do not know how it will develop. In Britain, if one is wise one lets these things evolve in this way. It would be ludicrous for us to say today that we are going to create regional government. Of course we shall still have local government as it is today, but we shall try to create regional institutions and to adapt these to give extra vitality to our local government. It will not be so easy to fit them in, but at least we are trying to do a difficult thing. We need regional government, and we need to make sure it has live institutions. For 13 years our predecessors did not try it.
It is difficult precisely to define functions. There will be times when regional councils are thought to be doing things about which local authorities are jealous. That will be natural. But it will prove that we are doing something about the problems and trying to create a genuine regional organisation. I have been brief in my reply to the hon. Member, but I have many other subjects to deal with, and he must excuse me for my brevity in dealing with this point.
I was gratified to learn that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South(Mr. Perry)—and I am sorry that I was not here to hear him say it—said that there were better relations between London boroughs and my Ministry now than before. I understand why. It is because of the excellent work done by my other Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Bermondsey(Mr. Mellish). He has been doing a job of work in London for which I give him great credit, especially on the question of railway land. It is true that not all railway land was being sold off before we came to power, but until we came in there was always a risk of its being handed over to private developers. My hon. Friend found that in the case of the airports some of the land went to the public sector—to local authorities—but bits of it went to private developers.
If one thing was clear from the Milner Holland Report it was the disastrous effect on London of handing over larger and larger areas to private developers. It is not that we are against this, as such, but because the class of house or flat that private developers were building were luxury or middle-class, far out of reach of the pockets of those who needed most to be housed. Therefore it was essential to claw back for the public sector, for building, every single acre of land we could get hold of within Greater London.
We cannot afford not to use the land for this essential function. I do not have to repeat this, because it has been demonstrated by the Milner Holland Report, but if the functions of the great conurbation of London are to be adequately carried out it is clear that we have to have a considerable number of people who are earning relatively low wages, and these people need to live near the centre of the conurbation. They cannot afford to live forty miles away and commute daily. These people's houses have to be subsidised and therefore built by local authorities and housing associations.
Our concern has been to take what little land is available. Now we have land in Croydon, Woolwich and Hendon, and we shall build on every acre—by means of public enterprise—the houses we need at rents people can afford. This is our biggest single job


in London, and outside it in the overspill areas.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South, that a real difference has entered into relationships between local authorities and my Ministry. This is because the people in the boroughs understood the need for this kind of housing and were desperate for it, because in the last thirteen years the Tory Government did not do anything about it. Now they have a Government which is far more sympathetic to their view of the kind of houses they need. If we can provide not only sympathy but a certain realisation of their financial problems there will be a perfect relationship between them and us. That would be a perfect relationship, but not a relationship which we can discuss at this early hour of the morning.
I turn again to the hon. Member for South Shields(Mr. Blenkinsop), who made a fascinating and interesting speech, and I want to make a number of comments on it. First, he asked me some questions about the South-East Study. I am very glad to have the opportunity at this early hour of the morning, which I would not have at other times, to say something about the future relationship of this Government to the South-East Plan.
The South-East Plan was a product not of my Ministry but of a group of Ministries, and it is a document prepared by officials. As that it really ought not to be called a plan. It would be wiser to call it an investigation, a survey which points the way. In a sense, it is presumptuous to call something which is so much a sketch as that a full-scale plan and give it that dignity.

Mr. Corfield: With respect, it is always referred to as a Study.

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I say it should be referred to as a Study. This is the first investigation of this kind, which we shall no doubt improve on in the future. It is a brilliant Study as far as it goes, and very stimulating. The method has not basically been challenged since then, and it demonstrated the right way to approach the problem. First one starts with the population estimates, and then one goes on to tackle the other problems.
For the first time that plan, or rather that Study, got across to the people in

a popular form the fact of the population explosion. It got people to understand that since 1956–57 a completely new situation had entered into this country with the double factor of the birth-rate and the reduction in the age of marriage. Added to it has been the motor-car revolution in our commuter areas. We were fond of Abercrombie, we always admired Abercrombie, but everything that occurred before that resolution is obsolete. Everything has to be based on the population for which you have to cater.
No one really challenges the figure of one million Londoners for whom homes will have to be found outside London by 1981. Some people have tried to; they have argued in terms of density and suggested that we can avoid sending them out of London by building thicker in London. I have had this looked into carefully. As far as I can understand, it is true that the L.C.C. tended to under-estimate under-accommodation. On the other hand, there is a very severe limit to the amount of dense building which can be done to reduce the need for overspill. Something can be done in this way, but unless we are to use areas of public open space which are required by the people, the solution must be to crowd people together and make buildings go higher and higher and become more expensive, the only effect of which is sharply to reduce returns after initial gains and push the spiral of costs higher and higher and steeper and steeper.
Although one should certainly continue to look for new building techniques, let us realise that open space and public building in cities is something we must have in the future. If we make a mistake, let us make a mistake on the good side of giving ourselves too much space and not too little.

Mr. William Yates: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen some of the rebuilding of the German cities such as Frankfurt. Surely some building of that kind could be done in London?

Mr. Crossman: I must say I am fascinated. I have, indeed, seen the chaos of the German cities. They are building themselves rabbit hutches. The average cubic space per person in Germany is far smaller than here. I do not blame them. They had all their towns destroyed, and they were driven by their


need to build flats which were much too small and houses far too crowded together. I would not select Cologne as being a good example. Dusseldorf is good. Cologne is miserable. Frankfurt is miserable—look at the failure to replan it properly and how it was rebuilt roughly as it was before. It is one of the disappointments of capitalist enterprise.
If we are to see really radical replanning we have to cross to the other side of Germany. At Rostock and Warsaw, too, some radical replanning can be seen, because it is easier for the Communists to do it; but West Germany is not the place to go to for imaginative town planning. It is a great disappointment to anyone who studies planning. It seems to be a place where they put things up as fast as they could, which did not hold together.

Mr. William Yates: The right hon. Gentleman knows that Cologne and the other cities he has mentioned were completely rebuilt. But greater mistakes were made in Cologne. They did not get the density right, and now they have not got the traffic right. He is correct, too, in the assumption he makes about East Germany, where the cities were rebuilt later.

Mr. Crossman: East Germany does not need to build for traffic because it has none. West Germany has the traffic but has not built for it.
One can praise Germany for many things. As a matter of fact, before 1914, in the Bismark era, they were perhaps the first great town planners. However, I would not have thought the Germans were proud of the post-1945 era when they look at town planning. When they come to see our new towns here they think we have done better than anything they have done in Germany.

Mr. Palmer: Is it not possible that they had more State enterprise in Germany before 1914?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I think they were were a highly centralised militarist State, and they did plan cities with industry in mind. The green belt, too, was conceived in pre-Weimar Germany. However, I do not think we should get into an historical discursus. We must press on with this debate, because there are

many other Members anxious to take part in further debates—this festivity of intellectual edification we are giving ourselves free of charge owing to the magnificent opportunity given to us this evening.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The right hon. Gentleman has given the game away. Does he not realise he is unwittingly taking part in an exercise designed entirely to kill tomorrow's business? The facetious remarks he has made have completely given the game away.

Mr. Crossman: What I am doing and what my hon. Friends are doing is to take the opportunity available to us to discuss a number of subjects which we do not very often get a chance of discussing. I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. I had hoped to have a discussion with him about the classification of ancient buildings, and I had worked myself up to give him a proper reply. I know that he cares about the subject of my Ministry and the classification of ancient buildings. However, I will give him my reply although he did not make his speech. Even though he did not bother to make his speech, I have the reply ready. That shows a generosity of spirit which I am amazed to have after such a crude, inelegant attitude by him on a subject about which he cares. Does he not want to discuss it? Why was it that only yesterday he was keen to discuss the subject of the classification of ancient buildings? Suddenly, in the course of today, the hon. Member's enthusiasm melted away. Mine did not. It remained as keen as ever. I am still keen on the subject, even though the hon. Member upsets me almost by the way. For purely political reasons he is thrusting down his own good taste, suppressing his best instincts, and letting political gerrymanderers simply exploit him. I am deeply shocked.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I should hate this piece of political manoeuvre on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to damage the good relationships which, I hope, will exist between him and myself and my friends on the subject of historic buildings. Will he take it from me that the reason why I did not raise it tonight, delighted though I am to hear the Minister talking about it


—I might have taken a couple of hours—was that I got wind that hon. Members on his side would use my subject to waste a great deal of time to try to kill tomorrow's business?

Mr. Crossman: It is not for me to adjudicate upon the value of subjects. We on this side are anxious to discuss a number of subjects which are dealt with by my Ministry. I was asked to come here with my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and be ready to answer questions which were to be put to me in a series of perfectly serious speeches embracing a long series of extremely interesting points. I am delighted to have this rare opportunity to answer.
It is insulting to suggest that this subject is less interesting than something which will take place later today. We have the right, when we come to this place, to discuss this subject. We have the right to do it under the constitution of the House. The Consolidated Fund Bill gives us the chance. We are using it for private Members' time and as a Minister I have been given a chance to discuss with hon. Members, on both sides, the subjects which they have raised with me in relation to town and country planning.
I wish that the hon. Member would not delay me. I want to hurry on with my work. We are on the South-East Study and I had got only halfway through what I was saying about it. When I was interrupted, I had reached the important point about the million Londoners who were being driven out of London, and the problem of dealing with them.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields about the quality of the Study and our estimate of it. We have not by any means completed our revision of the Study, but I can already say two things about it. First, the revision has certainly impressed on all of us the imaginative quality and the insight of the work. It is an extremely remarkable job. In certain points, however, as was inevitable, we have found, for instance, that the estimates and figures are modified by later information.
The Milner Holland Report has given one example: we have found that the estimates in the South-East Study of

Londoners in need of a home were overoptimistic. They were too low. I should like to quote to the House what the Milner Holland Report states at page 99 about a revision of the South-East Study:
A shortage estimate of at least 150,000 is given in the Ministry's South East Study, using the above method, but since very little of the 1961 Census data was available at that time, the adjustments to the "crude net deficiency' had to be based largely on 1951 data.
That is something to which I referred the other day when I spoke of the inadequacy of data in Whitehall. It may be that even this Study would have fallen apart had not Milner Holland done the really thorough survey to see how many Londoners were in need of homes, because he was not basing his findings on 1951 figures. To continue the quotation:
Using 1961 data, the Ministry recently made a revised estimate, which gave a shortage of 185,000. The Ministry has also attempted to bring this estimate up to date by examining changes in the stock of dwellings and the number of households between 1961 and 1964, and concluded that the housing shortage in London had grown worse since 1961—from about 185,000 in 1961 to perhaps as much as 230,000 by 1964.
These are important modifications of some of the figures in the South-East Study. It is probable that, as it is studied further, some of its figures will have to be modified. After all, it is two or three years out of date in some of its facts. The main value of the Study is in its basic approach, which shows that even if we built all we could inside London, and used all the sites available, and even if there were no immigrants from anywhere outside, the natural increase of London would require homes for one million people. I think that that has been substantiated; no one has challenged that fact. That is the fact which must be the basis of any policy of any Government in the South-East. They have to say to themselves, "We may succeed in stemming the flow into London. Even if we stopped it altogether, we should still have to find a million people room in the towns."
This is why we have to decide on our huge new plan of double size new towns to be started around London. I have announced one already; we shall be announcing a series of other towns later on, when the Study is completed.


Perhaps a quarter of the million will be placed in Buckinghamshire, some perhaps in Harlow and Basildon, others in the new twinned concepts of Ipswich, Peter-borough and Northampton. This is the first round; we have to do that three times over, after which we shall have completed the planning to take the over-spill. If we do not do that, we shall find the commuter sprawl sprawling out into the Green Belt.

Mr. Arthur Woodburn: As well as this picture which my right hon. Friend is drawing of the million people going outside London, there is also the problem of them coming into London. Whose responsibility is it to plan the roads, and the possibility of transport in and out of London to cope with these great numbers of people, and see that, once they have got in, they can get out again?

Mr. Crossman: My right hon. Friend knows that the co-ordination of transport planning with housing planning and other forms of planning is done in general planning studies, and the South-East Study was a general study. It took account of Buchanan thinking, and went into the question of transport very fully. I do not think that the transport study was inadequate. Our aim is not to transport many more people into London; our aim is to halt the flow into London. This is why we have the halt on office building. We knew that some firms had to have their headquarters in London, and that though London had stopped growing industrially, it was growing officewise, and that growth was encouraging the growth of a white collar salariat in and around London.

Mr. Atkinson: My right hon. Friend has raised a very important matter here, and a serious one for London Members. That is that one of the weaknesses of development has been the creation of factories within the community, and because of the creation of factories, involving skilled labour, it has been necessary to get a balance. How does my right hon. Friend suggest that the new towns and London could stop skilled people coming in? How will he stop the practice of allocating jobs to skilled people via the factories? In other words, factories are being built in the new towns

and a factory is allocated a certain number of houses according to the skill of the occupants.

Mr. Crossman: When the town is completely new, this is unavoidable. If a new town is built which has to attract industry, a certain number of key jobs have to be allocated to the industrialists, and a percentage of those who hold them do not come from Glasgow, London or Liverpool overspill, but from outside. What is striking is that when we made a re-estimate of the number of Londoners in the first round of new towns, we found that they represented over 80 per cent. of the population. This is a successful achievement. When we increase, as we probably shall, the size of Basildon and Harlow, say, we shall certainly hope to get a higher percentage—up to 90 per cent.—of Londoners, because the need for new factories is less essential when one is increasing the size of a town which already has 60,000 inhabitants, than if one is starting a town in the middle of a field. I believe that if we are to get 90 per cent. of genuine Londoners for the overspill, we should have to include them in a pretty good mixture with the key workers who would be necessary.

Mr. Atkinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the figures, but he is now talking about a tremendous difference. The figure now is between 50 per cent. and 55 per cent., although he is speaking of 90 per cent.

Mr. Crossman: We will have to check the figures later. It is my impression that if we look at the new towns around London we see that, roughly speaking, 80 per cent. of the people there are Londoners. Some of them are selected key workers, but they come from London. I am saying that when we made our survey we found that about 80 per cent. came from London and about 20 per cent. from outside. I was pointing out that we want to move the figure to 90 per cent.
When we consider the position in Scotland—in, say, Cumbernauld—with a new town only about 14 miles from Glasgow, there is the tremendous difficulty of preventing it becoming a commuter town. That is why I would not have started Redditch, only 10 miles from Birmingham, because to me that would seem far too close. It is, after all, on top of


the original town and is a kind of commuter town. There is, however, a reason for that. Manchester, for example, insists on it because it says that it wants slum clearance. It wants to re-house its people living in the slum areas and give them a new life—but the people from the slums will not go further than, say, 14 miles outside because the sort of work they do can only be done in the City.
This sort of thing is a great difficulty. The opposite to that is to have a new town right away; say, 50 miles outside an existing town. That gives people a new life, and they undoubtedly do a higher level of work and have a higher level of skill to man that kind of town. In this connection, I am thinking of Harlow or Stevenage. That is much more the case than in a new town that is related to slum clearance.
Thus we have those two kinds of town; one close and taking a large proportion of people as a result of slum clearance, and one further out with the skilled workers who go there. There is a different kind of atmosphere to be found in a town like Stevenage compared with towns elsewhere. These are some of the problems with which we must deal.
I hope that I have managed to answer the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields on the South-East Study. I come to his second question; the effect of land prices on planning. I would, in reply, like to give him a reflection—if one can reflect at this time in the morning—on the effect of planning on land prices. We have heard about an hon. Member who bought a farm in Buckinghamshire the other day and who wrote a sensational article saying that he was able to sell off 10 acres of it and thereby make the whole cost of his farm. If it is suggested that that is the result of planning, there is some truth in that. When he said that there was a simple way of bringing land prices down—by abolishing all planning control; then prices would slump—I think that he was speaking the literal truth. If one abolished all planning control, land prices would come down, although I do not know by how much. However, in addition to land prices coming down we would soon be looking like America; the whole countryside ruined and—

Mr. William Yates: Like Los Angeles?

Mr. Crossman: Yes indeed—the whole area would become a super Los Angeles. We must remember, therefore, that we have to pay the price for planning, and part of the price at present is inflated land prices. That is why we are concerned, in the Land Commission, to tackle this problem of inflated land prices. We must remember that if we are not going to do away with planning control we shall always have the tendency to have frozen land at one price and land with planning permission soaring to another price. These are the difficulties. It is a matter of looking at a town map and seeing land that could make one a millionaire and land belonging to the ordinary farmer. These are the differences inherent in any attempt to plan the country. These problems arise. Price inflation arises and do we say to the speculative builder, after denying him large areas, "You shall not build here"?
All these things concern us and in the Land Commission we shall be trying to tackle them and saying, "We believe in planning. We cannot get prices down by the old laissez-faire method. We must plan as rigorously as anyone can, but we must get another method of dealing with the inflated value of land created by planning." That will be done through the Land Commission and its method of buying and its method of dealing with values accruing. We shall deal with these things, but I think that even at this hour I should not now speak of new legislation—

Mr. Graham Page: Of course, the problem, if the right hon. Gentleman is looking at betterment from the moral point of view, is that the planning permission value should go to the man who creates the betterment on the other man's property.

Mr. Crossman: I do not feel that—on the contrary. I live in the country, and I doubt whether these people who live on their land really feel that this extra money belongs to them at all. I suspect that if it is denied them they are perfectly prepared to give it to the community. They will say, "If I can get the honest value for the land, the other value can go elsewhere". I think that this is the one tax that people will accept. If one said to people with land on the town map that it had quadrupled in


value and that they would thereby benefit, most of them would feel that it was an ill-gotten gain which the community had some right to acquire.
It is one of the easiest taxes to persuade people to accept, and if it were not we would not have the Conservatives coming crawling along behind when we lead—

Mr. Corfield: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to an article I wrote two years, I think, before Signposts for the Sixties.

Mr. Crossman: We can always find amongst the Conservative Party incipient Socialism in the most surprising places, and I am glad to pay my tribute to an article I have not read, though I might call it premature, because it will be printed in the Spectator, and it will give the hon. Gentleman a meed of praise.
Next, my hon. Friend asked me about central redevelopment. I agree about the cost of central redevelopment. Whereever I go about the country this is the first thing I am asked about by every local authority. One of the troubles in the post-Buchanan age is that local authorities are great planners. They say, "We have a great plan for the four square miles in the centre of the city, and nothing will do but the complete demolition of this part and that". If I add up all the plans of local authorities for total redevelopment, I am staggered by the aggregate cost of it all.
Though I am quite clear that the central Government will have to give extensive assistance to local authorities, this is one of the things we have to think of. It does not come under the general grant at all, but must be found in some way. Central development is one of the most important things, but spending on that scale will get out of gear with reality, so that we shall simply not be able to do it all like that. That is why I am shortly sending a circular to local authorities advising them to re-think their planning in two parts: have central redevelopment, but also improve existing property.
If houses have 20 years' more life, we cannot afford to throw them away or let the private developer pull them

down. There is a way of improving a city that combines the brilliantly new with renovating the old—and we in this country are very successful renovators. If we do things in that way we can get our central redevelopment at enormously less cost than by talking in terms of total demolition, and the construction of tall buildings. We cannot rely on the central Government to find everything. We must think in terms of the scale which we can possibly afford.
It is here that the point my hon. Friend made about experts and a pool of architects is of such importance. This kind of thinking requires more architectural expertise, not less. If we are to have the kind of mixture to which I have referred, we shall need architects of the greatest skill. System building, for instance, calls for better, not less skilled, architects, if we are to have system-built houses which are not like barracks. All the other considerations of landscaping, background, tree planting and the rest—the areas where we now have to concentrate—call for a supply of skills not readily available.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In this connection, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important to ensure, if possible, that any outside architects who come in to help on central features should work together with the local architects who may be doing much of the rest of the detailed work, improving existing properties, perhaps, and preserving the old and valuable?

Mr. Crossman: I agree, and it is important for us at the centre to make a register and let local authorities know of the limited amount of skill at their disposal and even, perhaps, put them in touch. I have just appointed Mr. Hugh Wilson to a new part-time job in my Department. He will be the inspirer and centre of this operation. One of his tasks will be to advise local authorities about talented young architects whom they can employ as consultants in special ways and to train the architects themselves how to fit into the local authority structure because, as my hon. Friend says, they have to work under the authority's general plan. I think that local authorities would be well advised to parcel out parts of central redevelopment, giving one area to one


group of architects and another to another group so as to have competition and variety in development.

Mr. Corfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the even greater shortage of people who have a clue about development in the countryside, in the villages?

Mr. Crossman: I shall come to the villages. I have been given all these points to answer, and I am being delayed on the way.

Mr. Woodburn: My right hon. Friend is giving a most interesting picture of what is happening. Will he explain this point? Throughout both England and Scotland, the Historic Buildings Councils and the National Trust are trying to preserve characteristic features of our towns so that the Britain of the future will not be a land of cement boxes. In the centres of many towns there are interesting buildings which are, virtually, history in stone. We wish to preserve them. What organisation will exist to see that there is not a spoilation of some of the fine features which should be preserved for the future?

Mr. Crossman: I must apologise for delaying the House. This point was made in the debate. One hon. Gentleman devoted the whole of his speech to that subject, and I shall come to it in due order.
I have dealt with the idea of having a pool of architects. I turn now to leisure facilities, the final matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. I agree that this is a subject on which we have scarcely begun our advance planning. Several of my hon. Friends referred to the possibility of combining planning for leisure with the salvation of derelict land. This is an obvious possibility. The Civic Trust has done some fine work. The Lea Valley scheme is a magnificent example of an imaginative idea, the taking of an absolutely derelict area and transforming it into an amenity area and a place for sport and recreation, with the possibility of having some housing as well.
In various parts of the country, in Lancashire, the West Riding and elsewhere, I see these derelict areas where, if one is prepared to spend money and

effort in clearing and cleaning them, the potential for amenity is gigantic. Around London, the most obvious examples are the gravel pits. I contrast the present condition of these sites with what we now require of the National Coal Board. When the Coal Board does opencast mining, we insist on a high standard of reinstatement. We require the Board to put the land back into a good state, creating an amenity for the community, giving it a golf course, perhaps, and some model mountains for the children. If one is reinstating, there is no reason why, if some thinking is done in advance, open-cast mining should not actually provide amenities for the area, and the same could be done after gravel extraction.
There is nothing in which we are advancing quicker than in water sports. Whether it be water-skiing, boating or sailing, an enormous number of people are anxious and willing to take part. I do not think we have even begun to exhaust the use of gravel pits if they are properly planned in advance. The trouble so far has been that gravel has been taken first, a hell of a mess has been created and then we have considered what can be done to restore the site.
The more sensible way is that we should not allow people to take the gravel unless we have first planned with them how the amenity is to be made afterwards. If we planned amenities in this way, combined with pragmatic things like gravel collection, we could make enormous advances and save great sums of money.
Every local authority says to me, "Clearing derelict sites is something the Government pay nothing for. We have to pay for it all out of the rates." I have been looking into this. I see no reason why this heroic job of clearing and restoring derelict sites around Wigan or in the Black Country, for instance, should not get subsidy or grant. A grant or subsidy for clearing derelict land is well worth considering.

Mr. William Yates: But one of the greatest achievements of the last Government was their decision to create a new town at Dawley, in my constituency. There, old coal pit areas are to be cleared and restored for the new


town centre. There will be these amenities that the right hon. Gentleman describes.

Mr. Crossman: I do not believe that there is anything new in the world. But when I go round the country and see places like the gravel pit at Egham I am not convinced that we are doing all we can. Dawley has scarcely started. It is a nice idea but we want to make reality and not merely have nice ideas.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) was long and interesting. He spoke movingly about the need for town centres to become more than cemeteries with traffic lights. I have already spoken about the need for building housing in town centres. But we cannot build there unless we put up a lot of money and have subsidies, otherwise rents will be too high. It is a case for planned building to ensure a proper balance between houses at working class rents, houses at middle class rents—a mixture of housing association houses at cost rents and council houses at low rents. We must ensure that they have a community life so that these centres do not die at night. The only way to make them live is to plan consciously.
I come now to the question of the preservation of ancient buildings. One of the most important aspects here is co-ordination between my Department and the Ministry of Public Building and Works. I do the classification of ancient buildings while the Ministry of Public Building and Works does the maintenance and gives the grants. We work together fairly happily.
When I arrived at the Ministry, I faced the situation that buildings are classified individually. What I think is more important than an individual building very often is a group of buildings. Very often, a street has, for instance, eight buildings classified—perhaps Nos. 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18 and 19, as Class 2 buildings, for which preservation orders must be secured. But the buildings in between are not classified. Then these latter are pulled down and the whole street line is broken.
Thus, the whole aim of preserving a street or a town centre is destroyed because someone has taken bits of it and

pulled them down. If we continue to preserve only bits here and there, we find that we are not preserving the real heart of the place. One can think of instances in Cotswold villages. There is the case of Stamford. In such cases, all too often odd buildings are pulled down. A developer can literally take over and pull down, for example, No. 23 in a street and put up a Woolworth's, thus destroying the overall beauty and interest of the street. We are very busy at work with our advisory committee to make sure that we have group classifications. It will be difficult to do this to a very high standard because we cannot have the whole of the Cotswolds as a group classification, for example, or it would be meaningless.
The classification does not in itself preserve the building. I classify, and that means that one cannot then pull it down without notifying the planning authority. The authority can slap on a preservation order if it wishes, but, in justice to local authorities, I must point out that one cannot slap on preservation orders unless someone is prepared to pay for the preservation. If the building is of such value, the question must be asked—who pays? Are we to put the cost solely on the owner of the building? The owner of a famous building perhaps ought to pay; if he chooses to buy a place of that sort he should be prepared to maintain it. But many people who live in these houses could not possibly be expected to pay. Here we need careful consultation. Having classified and put orders on the buildings, we have to decide how to pay for the preservation. We have the famous example of Worcester, where the centre of the town was gutted because no particular building was good enough to be classified and the whole lot was lost. We are putting out a new bulletin and new instructions to try to see that the group character of the centre of our towns is preserved.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has passed me a note to remind me to deal with another type of building, for another important question to decide is how modern buildings may be and yet be classified. How modern may they be and still be ancient buildings worthy of preservation? We have carried it forward to 1914, and I have ordered the Ritz to be classified.


Anyone who has had a drink there will know the atmosphere which we are trying to preserve. The food there is not good, but one is taken back 50 years or so in the atmosphere; it is a museum, something worth preserving, taking one back to the days of the Café Royal grill room, and to the Edwardian atmosphere. We have gone forward to 1914, and we should welcome the advice of the House on this point.

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Member, who was so angry with me for wasting time half-an-hour ago, is now joining me in this evening together.

Mr. Cooke: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's dinner jacket indicates that he has just come back from classifying the Ritz, but I have a serious point to put to him. I am sure that the House is very pleased to hear the progress which he is making in the classification of groups of buildings. Many of us have been interested in this for some time. What about the historic building which has been preserved by a private owner or in respect of which there has been a grant from the Historic Buildings Council or some similar body? What of the building the future of which is threatened because of its surroundings? The land may not be in the same ownership. This problem should be tackled. The Gowers Report recommended that the building and setting should be preserved. Have the Government any proposals about that?

Mr. Crossman: I could not agree more with the hon. Member. The more I look around the Ministry, the clearer it becomes that little was done by my predecessors here. I am glad that the hon. Member thinks that I have done so well in the first five months in office. In the next five months we shall go further and we may even tackle that problem, too.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I did not say that.

Mr. Crossman: I had a feeling of appreciation emanating from across the Floor.
I am sorry to have detained the House, but this been an unusually successful debate. I do not often have as many constructive points to answer. My hon.

Friend the Member for Newark was right when he said that it is essential that we get the local community to plan. It is no good just issuing orders from London. It is no good just making classifications for ancient buildings in the Ministry and assuming that that is enough. We must make the classification and then approach the local authority and convince them that it is sensible—and discuss the cost with them. Without this it does not work. This is true of all forms of preservation and all forms of planning. We must get down to the roots and get people to care about planning.

Mr. Bishop: There is one thing about which I am very anxious, and I think I touched on this in my speech, and that is the penalty where people have buildings that have been graded I and II but they have failed to maintain them. If they fall into a state of disrepair and the site is cleared, then, of course, something is lost. I heard that the penalty for allowing a site to be used for other purposes is about £100, which is a very small price to pay when speculators are prepared to pay a fantastic price for the land.

Mr. Crossman: I did mention this point. I said that one of the most difficult questions was the question of repair and maintenance of ancient buildings. Is it possible with a group classification to lay the whole burden of preventing the dilapidation of a building, which we are asking them to undertake, on the individual? Certainly, a lot of them will have to leave their homes if we do that to them. Quite often, they are going to be quite humble people who are living in these places, and they will not be able to afford it. This is something which we have to consider—local government and national government together—because classification by itself does not prevent dilapidation.
Therefore, we come to this point about community care. It really will depend on how much we are prepared to pay for it, because of course it is far cheaper to pull down a building and put up some monstrosity. This business of preserving our heritage is expensive. I really cannot claim that it is cheap. Of course, it is infinitely better if we get people to feel that it is worth while. This is why we have to realise that whatever we do


for planning, whether it is planning for the preservation of ancient buildings, or planning for new ones, or planning for amenity, it all depends for its success on community participation. I was delighted that the hon. Member made that point and, just as he ended his speech with that thought, so I should like to end my reply with the same thought as well.

Sir D. Glover: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, I should like to say that I go a long way with him in what he has been saying. But let us suppose that there is a piece of property which is the only piece of property which, say, widow Jones owns. Then, because of the desire to replace it with a block of flats or something like that, a property developer is prepared to offer her £10,000 or some very grossly inflated figure, but the difficulty is that the community is only prepared to offer her £2,500. The whole sympathy of the House, I am sure, would be with the widow Jones who wants to get the maximum amount of money for this site on which this historic building is situated and is offered a very inflated price by the property developer. How, in fact, does the State reach a decision between the property developer and the widow Jones, who wants to get the £10,000 which the property developer has offered, and the local council who say, "We think that this is a very fair offer of £2,500", because you really cannot expect her willingly to sell to the local council for £2,500 when somebody else is offering her £10,000? I think this is one of the problems, with regard to the preservation of ancient buildings, to which we have never really been able to find the complete answer.

Mr. Crossman: Certainly, the complete answer has not been found. I can spell out the routine answer, which is, of course, that the mere classification of the building by my Ministry simply means that before it can be pulled down or modified the planning authority has to be informed. It does not prevent the building being pulled down. To prevent it being pulled down, either the planning authority or I have to slap on a preservation order. When the preservation order is slapped on it cannot then, of course, be pulled down. The Ritz is a very good example. It is not only the widow but the owners of the Ritz who

might want to pull it down. The question is whether a preservation order will be slapped on the Ritz. These are real difficulties. I think I will sit down and stay down.

Orders of the Day — CONSUMER PROTECTION

2.20 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I am very pleased indeed to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, even at this hour of the morning, to raise a subject of very deep concern to many consumers, housewives in particular, who have been the victims of slick salesmen.
This is, I think, the first subject raised on this Bill by Government back benchers. The previous subjects were originally submitted by members of the Opposition. So it can be said that at precisely 2.20 in the morning Government back benchers are now coming into their own. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) representing the Board of Trade tonight, because I know the work he has done over many years, not only more recently as a Member in the Government, but as a Member in Opposition, in leading the campaign for more effective consumer protective legislation.
I would say to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), although he has left the Chamber now, who talked about a filibuster tonight by Government back benchers, that what I have to say now is by no means a waste of time, because I want to raise the whole question of the sales rackets which are being developed in this country particularly on American inspiration.
I want to elaborate a little further a statement I made in the House just over a week ago, when I said that the City of Newcastle, part of which I have the privilege to represent, is becoming a slick salesmen's paradise. I know that in the last few months, in this new Parliament, considerable interest has been expressed in this House, particularly at Question time, and to some extent on the Adjournment, in this question of consumer protection. I believe it is true to say that the whole question of the rights and privileges of consumers is an increasingly important part of British political


life, indeed, of British social life. In any affluent society there is an increasing quantity of money to be spent. People spend a greater part of their time enjoying their spending.

Mr. William Yates: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rhodes: I am glad the hon. Member opposite agrees with me.
But, equally, big business and other organisations may seek in some cases to exploit the purchasing power of the consumer in this situation by trading methods which are far from honest and far from decent. That is the theme I want to develop. It is also a social problem, because it is, perhaps, not so widely known that every year, aided apparently by high-pressure salesmen, 6,000 people go to prison because of their inability to meet their commitments. These are mostly women, and in a large percentage of the cases these women leave children behind who then have to be taken, at public expense, into some kind of home.
Another point needs to be made by way of introduction to this subject, namely, that in this country consumers are not particularly well organised. In the nineteenth century, when the producers of goods, the workers, were in need of protection, they worked together, they co-operated, to form their trade union movement to protect their interests. Although consumer protection has long antecedents in this country, going way back to the Truck Acts, the fact is that consumers, as a group of people, have never been organised to defend their common interests in the way, say, the trade unions organised the workers to protect their interests. Because consumers have not been well organised they have been particularly vulnerable, of course, especially in this age of the affluent society, to the tricks of the highly skilled, highly trained slick salesmen, and it is to particular examples which have developed in recent months of exploitation of high pressure sales techniques to which I wish to refer.
Running through all these techniques, or many of them anyway, we find companies of American origin—although I would not want my remarks this evening to be interpreted as an attack on American big business in any general

kind of way: it would be grossly unfair. It is significant—I shall make this point at some length later—that American high-pressure salesmen have taken to developing their routes in this country precisely because consumer protection legislation in the United States is so much tighter than ours in this country. It is because they have been driven out of their country by their own laws that they have come here in the last few years and developed some of the methods to which I think the Board of Trade should direct attention.
To take a small example first, an hon. Member opposite some time ago raised the question of the high-pressure sales techniques of book-selling companies in general and of the Encyclopaedia Britannica in particular. I recollect the case because only about two weeks after I became a Member of the House my wife informed me that during the day she had had several telephone calls from a man who said that he was undertaking a research project. He had repeatedly said that he was not selling anything but merely wished to ask us to answer a questionnaire as part of some research being carried out in the the tastes and habits of middle-class people—a complimentary term, of course, which is a subtle way of getting access to what is called "the sales pitch"—who might have an intelligent view of the kind of books which should be published. This is the point of entry into the sales pitch.
I found that the representative had, as it were, got into the "front parlour". I was subjected to three hours of high-pressure sales techniques. I will not detain the House with a long description of the subtleties of the techniques involved. But these people are highly trained and highly skilled. The entry into the sales pitch was by false pretences. The whole object of the visit was to try to sell £200 or £300 worth of books. Three hours later the gentleman left, having perhaps met some consumer resistance, but these people do not always meet that kind of resistance.

Mr. loan L. Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware of the practice of salesmen of saying when they meet the housewife that they are from an education department, thus conveying the impression that they are from the local


education department, when, in fact, they are actually from a commercial education department?

Mr. Rhodes: That is true. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have other evidence that I was not going to mention, but now I will mention it briefly. Persons go to houses and say that they are from the school attended by the children of the household. Again, this is part of the deceptive technique to gain entry to the sales pitch. A constituent of mine living in Heaton, New-castle-upon-Tyne, recently drew my attention to an instance. She wrote:
This doorstep salesman said that we could have the encyclopaedias free if we agreed to take part in his research project.
After the sales patter had started, they discovered that they were expected to pay 5d. a day for 10 years. They had the intelligence to work it out and found that they would pay dearly for the books that they were going to get.
I mention that as a small example. In fact, the company, after the publicity and pressure put on it by the hon. Member opposite and by a number of newspapers, changed its sales techniques, but the damage had been done. The point that I want to make in relation to book sales is that dishonesty at the point of entry is something to which attention ought to be directed—I am sure it is being done— by the Board of Trade.
I have another example from within my own recollection. While I had the privilege of being a departmental head in a technical college I had an extraordinary example of this sales technique. A representative of a reputable book company, a well known national company—I will not mention its name because what happened does not in any way represent the company—got the names of the students in the college through one of the students who talked to him. He then traced their addresses through the local electoral register. Then he went from door to door saying that he was selling books which the lecturers on the course had recommended to the students. It is true that after considerable correspondence we got this salesman sacked by that company, but if there had been some proper system of licensing of salesmen in this country, his licence might well have been revoked.

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is difficult to conceive of any circumstances in which this would not want legislation. We can talk about almost anything, but not that.

Mr. Rhodes: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. For that reason, what I wanted to say was contained in the one sentence and I do not intend to proceed with it further.
I want also to draw the attention of the House to the activities of another group of companies which has recently established itself in this country, namely, the Concert Hall Record Club Limited and its associates, one of which is Vitasafe (England) Plan Limited. This is a very interesting and intriguing company because, as I shall explain, a company of an almost identical name and with identical directors was prosecuted in the United States for doing precisely the things with which the company is getting away in this country.
There are 5,000 shares in Concert Hall Record Club Limited and David Josefowitz and Samuel Josefowitz each own 1,650 shares in this record club. The names are well worth remembering, because they will crop up again later in what I have to say. The club owns 96 per cent. of the shares in Vitasafe (England) Plan Limited. Recently, the activities of this organisation have been publicised because of the unsatisfactory sales techniques which it employs. Of what is this company accused by those who condemn it?
Numerous complaints have been received by hon. Members from constituents and people in nearby constituencies, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), about the organisation. This is the sales technique. The first consignment of goods is sent as a 30-day free sample, usually as the result of an advertisement in the national Press. Then the customer finds himself under considerable pressure to accept and pay for further quantities of these goods. If he does not pay for the goods because he has not specifically asked for them, he is relatively quickly subjected to a threatening letter implying legal action.
The interesting thing is that these legal action letters are usually in a printed


standard form, because this is part of the sales technique. They usually say something to the effect that the customer is informed that unless full payment of the account is received within the next 14 days, the company will advise its solicitors to institute immediate proceedings against the customer and take all steps open to them by law to enforce the collection of the debt and that at these proceedings they will ask for such legal costs as will be appropriate and that it is in the best interests of the customer to make payment right now.
The interesting thing about this is simple—that these people have not specifically asked for further supplies of these vitamin capsules. What happens is that the company sends a card which says:
Your next month's shipment of vitamins will be rushed to you automatically unless you inform us before the date on the card.
This is a negative way of obtaining a client's commitment. I very much doubt whether that negative kind of commitment of a client would hold force in court, but the interesting thing about it is that sometimes these cards are received later than the date on the card, so that even if people could be expected to negative the offer, it would be too late for them to do so.
The techniques of this organisation were brought to the attention of the American State authorities. I want to mention this case of the Vitasafe Corporation of the United States of America because, when the case went to court in the States, the respondents were David Josefowitz and Samuel Josefowitz. The people running the company there, whose activities were banned there, then came to this country to run this organisation, or put money into it, where they are getting away with this kind of thing.
In the American court action was taken against them by the Federal Trade Commission. The order against them was that they should
cease representing falsely in advertising in newspapers, magazines, etc., that a 30-day supply of their vitamin and mineral product, "Vitasafe C.F. Capsules,' would be sent free to persons responding to the advertisements.
They go on to say in this order that
the offer was part of a scheme under which, after the 30-day supply, respondents shipped additional monthly supplies to persons

answering the advertisements, mailed them statements requesting payment therefor and, when payment was not received, placed the accounts in the hands of a collecting agency and attorney to enforce collection—continuing this practice even after receiving notification from recipients to discontinue sending the monthly supplies.
The respondents, these two worthy gentlemen, admitted the facts.
The facts were not disputed, and it was ordered by the American Federal Court that they should forthwith cease and desist from representing
directly or by implication, that a supply of respondents' product is offered free, when the offer is used as a means of enrolling those who accept the offer in a plan whereby additional supplies of the product are shipped monthly to such persons at an additional charge, unless the conditions of the plan are clearly set out in the offer.
This technique and these advertisements are the same methods as are operating in this country at the present time, and the reason why they are operating here is that in 1957 American legislation prevented them operating in the United States.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

2.39 a.m.

Mr. William Yates: I receive records from the Concert Hall Record Club. I have examined the quality of the music provided, and it seems to be perfectly adequate. When I wrote and said that I did not want records sent to me for a period of time, I was not pestered to take further orders of records. In fairness to the firm and to the House, would the hon. Gentleman give examples of where the Concert Hall company has offended any of his constituents, or give examples of where he has dealt with this matter?

Mr. Rhodes: I will certainly do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I was dealing with a subsidiary of the Concert Hall Record Club called the Vitasafe (England) Plan Limited. When I have dealt with it I will deal with the company to which the hon. Member refers.
Before leaving the Vitasafe people, the case in the United States against the company was instituted by the Food and Drug Administration under the Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Federal


Trade Commission Act. The accusation against the company found by the court was of deceptive advertising and forwarding changing and products to their clients after notification that they were not required. I am not in a position to suggest that legislation of a similar nature should be put into operation in this country, as you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that there is this defect in the existing law which enables a company which cannot operate effectively in the United States to get away with it in this country.
The Concert Hall Record Club has another subsidiary known as the Corsano Company Ltd., responsible for cosmetics and beauty treatment. It was this organisation that was so bold in its high-pressure advertising methods that it did not take proper cognisance of the kind of clients it was circulating. Hon. Members will recall that it recently sent out literature describing sexual practices throughout the ages, from ancient civilisations right up to the present day. Although the company argued that this was a mistake, it is this kind of irresponsible pushing out of promotion literature which has caused offence.
Hon. Members may recollect that I raised the question—as did other hon. Members—of the advertising of the "Penthouse" magazine. The same
kind of thing happened there. Many of my constituents were very offended to receive pictures of naked females through their letterboxes, as part of the promotion technique of that magazine. After I had raised the matter with the Minister the magazine had the cheek to distribute a leaflet in my constituency, saying that it hoped that its sales would rise as a result of the irresponsible criticism made of its literature by the local Member of Parliament. Irresponsible or not, Members of Parliament should try to protect the interests of many of their constituents who object to their children receiving unsavoury and unsolicited literature through the letterbox.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) invited me to say a word about the Concert Hall Record Club, which has a controlling interest in the other organisations. The criticisms

I would make of this company are perhaps not so formidable as those I have made of Vitasafe, but they are formidable enough. People living on Tyneside have drawn to my attention the fact that they have repeatedly received faulty records. The hon. Member may be one of the fortunate ones, but I have received considerable evidence, in correspondence and from other sources, that faulty records have been sent out. More particularly, there are examples of unsolicited records having been received. I have in my possession a letter from a person who says:
As this company continually failed to acknowledge my letters to cancel my so-called club membership, I found it necessary to record the correspondence sent in an official manner…I did not get a reply to my letters.
He was threatened with legal action.
Another letter says:
I purchased the advertised sample records, on the advertised understanding that this purchase placed me under no legal obligation to buy further records. Since this purchase this Company have sent me a monthly record…
A letter cancelling membership was sent, but he got a further letter threatening legal action. Again the technique is similar. It follows the pattern of the technique which is not allowed in the United States.

Mr. Harold Lever: Presumably these customers and constituents get to know of these offers through advertisements in the newspapers. Can my hon. Friend tell me what steps, if any, he has taken—or what steps his constituents have taken—to inform those newspapers who disseminate these untrustworthy and false promises of the facts?

Mr. Rhodes: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he is aware, pressure is always being put on by hon. Members to raise the standards of advertising generally in the newspapers, and the Concert Hall Record Club has been exposed publicly in recent weeks, in particular by a statement issued by the Consumer Council. In view of this statement, issued a couple of weeks ago, I hope that responsible and reputable newspapers will cease accepting advertisements from companies of this kind.
There is another interesting point before I leave this particular organisation. In the United States this company


Vitasafe were indicted for making unjustified claims. In the advertising which is at present being distributed in this country in newspapers and so on, they state that there is widespread vitamin deficiency from which we all suffer and that therefore we need these pills. I am not a doctor, but I have taken medical advice and I am informed that there is no widespread vitamin deficiency in this country and that this is a falsehood. I understand from medical advice that these pills may be of some value to pregnant women and to children suffering from some deficiencies, but I am also told that such people would be well advised to see their own doctor.
This bait, followed by the pressure method of selling, is spreading particularly from the United States, where it has become more difficult because of the restrictive laws of that country. Once you have got an address you pump in the stuff and leave it to the person who receives it to take the positive action of saying they do not want any more. The stuff is pumped out and then there is the threat of legal action. The vast majority of people are scared stiff when they get these letters threatening legal action and they pay up and that is the end of it.
I understand that in France it is illegal to send unsolicited gifts through the post on a sale or return basis, and I will just draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that there is this deficiency in the law in this country.
Another American organisation of which the House has heard a good deal is the Universal Health Clubs, and I think the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford for exposing this particular organisation. Recently it has established an office at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The technique of this organisation is "come into my parlour", and once they get one into the parlour it is very difficult to get out. The sales manual issued to employees of that company says that they must hammer and hammer away at the potential client, and there is a whole method set out on how to prevent the potential client from escaping, even to standing in the doorway so that there is no way of escape. Perhaps I should mention that one of their special techniques of persuasion is the simple

lie of telling somebody that he or she is the last one or two of the 100 needed to get a special offer. Everyone who goes there seems to be one of the last two or three out of the 100—this is the technique of persuasion.
Worse than this is a case I read of which may be subject to legal action, so I will not name the person. It concerns a blind person who, having had the contract signed for her and been told that it would cost 3s. 11d. a week, discovered that it in fact cost 18s. 9d. a week. This is misrepresentation. These contracts have been sold to thousands of people in this country, and they have been subjected to the strongest legal pressure to pay up.
These organisations do not, in my view, provide adequate protection for the safety of health. There was a time when one could not get out of the contract one had entered into even if there were medical grounds for doing so. I understand that they agreed that if a person could produce a medical certificate that they cannot carry on the course the contract would come to an end, but I understand that that is not being operated today. Even today, people who have been made physically disabled in the studios of this company are under high pressure to pay up.
I believe it is true to say that in recent days, since the new management took over—this new management which we were told would have completely different standards of conduct in future from the Bowman-Shaws, who did a moonlight or daylight flit—the new management are putting the strongest pressure on thousands of their clients in this country to pay up so that they can rake in the money. What will happen afterwards, I am not sure. This is interesting, because it is another example of an American-inspired company using methods which I understand were tried out in the States successfully for a while until things became difficult for them under the law of particular states in that country.
I want now to turn to another development in recent weeks, the full impact of which has not yet been felt in this country, namely, the franchise system in retail. As operated in the United States, in the vast majority of cases it is a perfectly honest and legal method of operating business. It is a system where


a large national name in America such as Dunkin Donuts uses the small retailer as the focal point of contact with the consumer. The danger is that, in the United States, thugs and gangsters—people known as "the front money boys"—get the small retailers to commit themselves heavily financially to receive the services of the franchiser, and they then find they are left high and dry without any of the services.
Retailing in this country has had relatively high standards in the past. Whether one thinks in terms of the multiples, the co-operative shops or the small retailers, most people traditionally have expected a fair service and to pay a fair price. We know there are exceptions, and there is a danger in the large-scale invasion of American capital into the franchise type of business that some of the less reputable methods that were developing in some franchise organisations in the States will develop here.
I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the problem. They are now beginning to establish Dunkin Donuts and other sales outlets in this country and, while there is no evidence yet of any of the thugs and gangsters moving in, it is vitally important to keep the closest eye on the development of the franchise system in this country for fear that there is a repetition of some of the practices which have gone on in the United States.

Mr. William Yates: I am feeling hungry now. Where can I get some Dunkin Donuts?

Hon. Members: In the tea bar.

Mr. Rhodes: I believe last week a university of Dunkin Donut making was established in Aylesbury, where people are trained in the process of the Dunkin Donuts Company with a view to becoming franchise holders. I am not accusing this particular company of dishonest trading practices, nor is it my intention to advertise their products.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Member was indeed advertising the product pretty heavily.

Mr. Rhodes: I do not see the point of the intervention, because I was merely saying this was one of the large fran- 
chising organisations in the United States, and I was not seeking in any way to accuse the organisation of malpractice. It is one example of a franchise company coming here, where, in the United States, some franchising organisations did become controlled by thugs and gangsters, and I am merely advising my hon. Friend to watch the position.
Changing from American-inspired practices to one which comes from the Continent of Europe, I would now make reference to the Willie Scheidegger Swiss Typing School. This particular organisation has been establishing its schools in the north-east of England, particularly in Darlington and Newcastle, and they are about to enter Scotland and Northern Ireland. They are recruiting about 2,000 new students every month.
What happened—certainly, what happened before the turn of the year, particularly in Darlington and in some cases reported in Newcastle—is that the salesmen ostensibly were selling a typewriting course but that when people signed on for the course, they discovered to their great surprise that they were committed to buying a typewriter as well. There was no mention on the part of the salesmen, particularly those operating in Darlington, that anyone was buying a typewriter. There was no mention by the salesmen of a hire-purchase agreement.
What was done was that the housewife was persuaded, usually on the doorstep, to enrol for typewriting lessons and, at the last moment, was presented with what was usually a folded piece of paper to sign which committed her to paying instalments on a typewriter. The agreement, it may be said, shows clearly what a signatory signs for and, therefore, people sign foolishly, but it must be said that this firm's publicity in the North-East does not make it clear that the hire purchase of a typewriter is the key to the transaction.
There is abundant evidence, which has been particularly reported in the Northern Press, of numerous people being cheated, misled by salesmen. It can be argued that although a company is responsible for its salesmen, occasional bad salesmen do a company's name a disservice by acting contrary to instructions


given by the management. I would not know whether the salesman or salesmen in question were acting in this way. I do know, however, that under the new Hire Purchase Act a three-day turn-back or lay-off is specified during which a person can cancel a contract to buy equipment. It is significant that immediately the new Hire Purchase Act came into force, this Swiss Typing School dropped its hire-purchase agreement system and turned over to a rental agreement system. This means that there is no three-day protection period for people who now sign the documents, because rental agreements are not covered by the hire-purchase legislation. People no longer buy the typewriters; they merely rent them. The course, which is purely a service. does not come within the scope of the Hire Purchase Acts.
I have received perfectly courteous letters from the manager of this organisation, but he let the cat out of the bag when he said that they have an ingenious way of selling typewriters. That is the crux of the whole business. They are selling typewriters under cover of selling typewriting courses.
People, housewives in particular, should be warned clearly what they are letting themselves in for. The people get eight typewriting lessons lasting an hour and a half each, making 12 hours of typewriting, plus a correspondence course and the renting of a typewriter for £30. I was at one time responsible for the business studies department of a technical college at which we had 1,000 girl typists in training. The local education authority provided them with two hours of practice on the same machine, three nights a week, for about 40 weeks a year, or something like 200 hours of tuition, at no cost if they were under the age of 18 and at a charge of, I think, £1 a year if they were over that age.
Again, it is a case of the housewife being met on the doorstep, cajoled and persuaded. I have details of people who have tried to cancel their agreement after two or three days, but because it is a rental agreement they have been unable to do so.
Turning to some of the high-pressure sales techniques which have been operated in the last few weeks in the City of Newcastle—here I leave foreign

companies and turn to some of our own—there is the technique of going round to houses. A housewife in Newcastle recently informed me that a man goes to the house to service the washing machine, and immediately he sees it he says that it is no good and that the housewife needs a new one. The man spends half an hour trying to persuade the housewife to buy a new one. This experience happened to my wife about three years ago, when she was told that the machine was irreparable and that she needed a new one. We had it repaired and it is still going strong. The fact is that oral misrepresentation of fact, as I understand it, is not covered by the law as it exists at present. The Citizens Advice Bureau in Newcastle issued a statement last Saturday saying that outside firms descend on the city, have a few weeks' campaign with their high-Pressure methods, and then go away, leaving behind a trail of discontent, disillusionment—and perhaps of misery, if their customers are the kind of people, of whom there are 6,000 every year, who have to go to prison because of inability to meet their hire purchase commitments.
Recently, just across the Tyne in Gateshead, there was a case of a man who said that he had been sent by the priest and who called on Roman Catholic families to sell Bibles at highly inflated prices. This kind of activity needs to be clamped down. I believe that it may be done administratively, without a change in the law, but I would not know, and I should be glad to have my hon. Friend's comments. It is because of the Universal Health Studios which I have mentioned in Newcastle, the distribution of records from the Concert Hall Record Club, the rackets in relation to the service of so-called washing machines, and book companies which pretend that they represent official authorities, as well as the spread of the Scheidegger Swiss Typing School in the north-east area in general and in Newcastle in particular, which led me to make the comment a few weeks ago that the city is becoming a slick salesman's paradise. The sooner the housewives of the area become more alert to this kind of practice, the better it will be for the life of the area as a whole.
Another racket which has been operating for some time—my area seems


to be a victim of these practices—is the case of a student selling magazines in order to get money to pay for a scholarship who says that one more sale and he has made it. Perhaps other hon. Members know of similar cases. This was, of course, misrepresentation, touting for a sale on the basis of false information. What action can the Board of Trade take within existing legislation to deal with matters of this kind? I understand that Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948, refers to investigation by the Board of Trade, not only in the case of fraud, but where a company acts oppressively to increase its membership. I think that some clarification of this point of membership is necessary. How far does existing legislation, for example, cover members of record clubs or members of health clubs or members of organisations as distinct from pure shareholders?

Mr. Harold Lever: If it would help my hon. Friend on the question of how far the legislation protects them, the answer is not at all.

Mr. Rhodes: I am obliged for the answer which my hon. Friend gave me, but I am also distressed by it. While it would be out of order for me to suggest lines of future legislation, I would say that, in the United States, the Federal Trade Commission can prosecute on practically every one of the commercial malpractices which I have outlined this evening.
I believe that consumer interests are increasingly important in the life of the people of this country. Future legislation will have more and more to deal with their interests. I hope that it will. This will necessarily involve a number of administrative changes. I believe that the protection of consumer interests should be placed within one Department with a Minister of State at its head who is responsible for consumer protection.
The Minister of State will probably confirm that consumer functions and responsibilities are at present in the hands of a number of Departments—Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Home Office, Scottish Office, Housing and Local Government, Health and so on—and I hope that he will also agree that it would be administratively more convenient if the responsibility here was brought under

one roof, within a separate Department with its own Minister of State. Consumer protection is now so important that before long it will have to have its own Ministry, which would be responsible for appointing representatives to advisory and consultative bodies and so on. Perhaps in the various marketing boards and other organisations it would be in the public interest if there were greater Government representation.
I will refer briefly to the work of the Consumer Council. Although I do not agree with those who say that it is ineffective, I do believe that it is not effective enough. It has done good work but those who have studied the problems involved feel that the Council's big weakness derives from the fact that it was not given sufficient teeth with which to bite into certain commercial activities to protect the interests of the consumer.
I admire the work the Council has done in consumer education and I hope that it will be extended. My remarks tonight would not be needed if consumers were so on their guard against high pressure techniques that they could withstand them. The odd thing about consumer education is that the majority of people who are hoodwinked are the working-class housewives. They do not normally attend consumer education groups or read Which. It is generally the relatively well educated, professional and middle and upper-class people who do these things.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that working-class people are uneducated?

Mr. Rhodes: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I was saying that on consumer education it is largely people who have had a university or professional education who are mainly interested in these activities. The working classes, for reasons I do not know, have taken practically no interest in the development of consumer protection organisations, although they are, in the main, the group who fall for the high-pressure techniques. Far be it for me to suggest that the 21,200 people of Newcastle who sent me here are uneducated. Their standard of education is relatively high.
I would like to see consumer education developed more extensively, particularly at the school level. A number


of schools, particularly secondary moderns, have devoted time to social studies, programming and analysing advertisements in newspapers, reading articles in Which and generally studying high pressure sales techniques.
The Consumer Council has done a great deal of work in consumer education. It has published a number of books and magazines, which it has distributed in recent months. I should like to see it have more resources to do that sort of thing. It has held a large number of consumer conferences, and it has encouraged the development of consumer groups. What is now required is a representative of the Council at every regional centre who would be almost exclusively concerned with the development of consumer education in local schools, adult education organisations, and so on. That would help to solve some of these problems. If it is said that this would cost money, I would reply that the cost would be infinitesimal compared with the tremendous sums "milked" out of innocent consumers who are not educated in the consumer sense to withstand these techniques.
Returning to what my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said, if it were true that most people were consumer-educated they would not fall for the subtle techniques used by the high-pressure salesmen, but the fact is that whatever the range of one's formal education there is the danger that one is not psychologically prepared through consumer-education activities to withstand the techniques and blandishments of these high-pressure salesmen. If there were time, I would deal with the psychological aspect of the training—

Mr. Atkinson: Would my hon. Friend relate what he is saying to Colman, Prentis & Varley and the 12frac12; million people who support the Conservative Party? Surely, this is the greatest pressure group of all, and I am sure my hon. Friend is not suggesting that those are exclusively working-class people who voted Tory at the last General Election.

Mr. Rhodes: I say that the voters who were diddled are not exclusively Tory or uneducated, but are uneducated in particular to withstand the blandishments of the high-pressure salesmen. One does not acquire the technique of

withstanding those blandishments without some education—

Mr. A. Woodburn: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this technique is sometimes applied to good causes as well as to bad? For example, does he not agree that a great many suffering people are helped by the same sort of high-pressure methods of selling stamps to people, and that the people to whom he refers as being so highly educated are probably those who yield most to pressure to help the suffering? Is he not aware that some of these American people have come here to find out what sort of suffering or ailing people do not have a high-pressure sales course on their behalf? Has he investigated that kind of salesmanship?

Mr. Rhodes: I have investigated that kind of salesmanship and, with respect, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that fairly highly educated middle-class people, to call them that—people who have been to colleges and universities—tend to be more likely to respond to good-cause high-pressure techniques than do other sections of the community. but it is not exclusively they who have money taken from them—

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Would my hon. Friend agree that a large number of working-class housewives have shown interest in consumer protection through the medium of the Co-operative movement?

Mr. Rhodes: My hon. Friend has a mind that moves very closely to my own; I had that as my next point in my brief contribution —

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Member is falling into the same trap as some others of his hon. Friends by referring to his speech as a brief contribution. As he has already spoken for nearly an hour, that is surely facetious and only shows that hon. Members opposite are using the occasion to destroy the business for tomorrow and so prevent a Bill being passed that would bring immense benefits to old people, and be of far more value to them than some Measures introduced by his own Government.

Mr. Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Ought not tedious repetition to be avoided?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): That is not a point of order at this moment.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Before my hon. Friend continues, may I ask the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) whether he has calculated how many times he has been on his feet during this debate and how long he has detained the House in total? He will find that he has taken up more time than any other speaker, and still he has said nothing.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Before the hon. Gentleman resumes—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. An hon. Member may give way for another hon. Member's intervention. We cannot have an intervention upon an intervention.

Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Member for Bristol, West should try to contain himself a little more. If he cares to check at Mr. Speaker's office, he will find that I submitted this subject early in the week immediately I found that it was possible to raise it. The contribution which I have made is by no means irrelevant to the needs of the people. If the hon. Gentleman really feels that the exploitation of consumers is not a worthy subject for consideration by the House, he can more usefully employ his energies by leaving the Chamber.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. loan L. Evans: If the hon. Member for Bristol, West does not think that consumer protection requires the urgent attention of the Labour Government, will he tell us what his party did during its 13 years of power?

Mr. Rhodes: It is true that the Co-operative movement has done a great deal in consumer education, through its education department at Loughborough and the college at Loughborough, through the Co-operative Women's Guilds and through its shops, but it is not done on a broad enough front to be felt as widely as is necessary.
I have a suggestion to make about door-step selling which may, perhaps,

require legislation. Is it not possible to think in terms of some form of licence for door-step salesmen or a method of identification so that goods may be returned if their purchase is regretted? As legislation might be involved, I leave that point there.
There is not enough consumer protection as regards housing, as is well known. I understand that this is to be discussed in the House in due course, and I hope that it will be possible to take effective action. The enforcement of existing consumer protection legislation must be undertaken by the local authorities. I have in mind, for example, the new Weights and Measures Act, and there is other legislation recently passed by Parliament which is to come into force fairly soon. I am not convinced that the local authorities have either the facilities or the staff effectively to administer the consequences of the laws which Parliament has passed. Consumers must be satisfied that our laws are enforceable, that violations can be investigated, and that there is an effective channel for complaints.
How does the Board of Trade see the rôle of local authorities in implementing existing consumer legislation? Having spent some years as a borough councillor, I believe that borough councils are perhaps more responsive to consumer pressure than almost any other public agency or representatives. Nearly everyone knows a borough councillor or someone who does. For this reason, if the local councils were used more widely in developing the administration of consumer protection laws, inadequate though these may be, they would be a focal point of criticism which would be very effective.
I am sure that what I am about to say will cheer the hearts of hon. Members opposite. I think that the nationalised industries established by the Labour Government after the war do not have adequate consultative machinery. My strongest criticisms of these industries is that they do not have effective machinery for protecting consumer interests. It may well be that the greatest weakness is the inadequate publicity given to the existence of the consultative machinery. It is referred to only in very small print. If one asked the man in the street how


he could complain about inadequate service by the railways or the gas industry, for instance, he would not know.

Mr. H. Hynd: Inadequate though the machinery might be, would not my hon. Friend agree that for the first time these nationalisation Measures introduced a scheme for consumer protection?

Mr. Rhodes: I agree. Certainly the interests of the consumer are more effectively defended in many of these cases than they were under the old set-up, but that does not necessarily mean that one is satisfied with the machinery as it exists. In a Labour Party statement a few years ago, there was reference to one industry which said it did not wish to advertise the consultative machinery because it might embarrass local managements. That is the wrong approach. More attention should be paid to consumer consultative machinery in the nationalised industries.
We need more consumer research and market research, which is usually done from the producer's point of view. I understand that the amount of money spent on consumer research has declined while spending on social and economic research in general has risen markedly. More money should be spent by the Government, the universities and research bodies on consumer research, particularly in relation to hire purchase, prices and housing.
In general, I give wholehearted support to the Consumer Council as a body which should advise the Minister and be dependent on him. Local authorities should be able to undertake consumer protection work. I do not believe that citizens' advice bureaux have sufficient resources to do this work effectively. The Board of Trade, as the Department responsible for consumer protection, should be given more money, more power and more officers. Local authorities should be given more power and be able to institute proceedings against dishonest traders.
It is incredible that, whereas the law requires those fitting optical and dental appliances to be properly qualified, there is no control over the hearing aid slick salesman, nor is any doctor's prescription required. Any firms selling these

things should be registered. We have heard examples—this has been raised in Parliament—of extortionate prices obtained by slick salesmen from people who have this deficiency.
To summarise, the first point which I made is that there is a growing exploitation of consumers under existing law. I read in a San Francisco newspaper only last week a reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford and myself, who were described as "two Labourites who know that Yankee 'know-how' hurts". The newspaper also referred to an hon. Conservative Member of Parliament, but my hon. Friend and I were apparently not considered worthy of that title. The point which I have been making is that there is a kind of Yankee "know-how" which we do not want in this country because it hurts people's pockets.
Secondly, I said that changes in the law are required. For obvious reasons I did not pursue that. Thirdly, I asked for more active implementation of the existing law and said that a tightening of present administrative arrangements would improve the present situation. I concluded by developing the point of the need for consumer education. If we are to live in a consumer democracy we need more protection from the kind of techniques which are invading this country. Over the next 20, 30 or 40 years, the issue of protecting consumers, serving the interests of consumers and developing consumer legislation will become one of the principal issues of British politics, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider carefully some of the remarks which I have made.

3.27 a.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: In rising after the remarkable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), I am reminded of the man who said that he was speaking for posterity and seemed intent on continuing until his audience arrived. My hon. Friend's speech was no less remarkable and no less informative for that, and I am sure that we are all grateful to him for his contribution.
We are today living in an increasingly consumer-oriented society. Hon. Members on this side of the House have long


been concerned about the protection of the people primarily at the point of production by means of trade unions. We ought increasingly to consider the protection of people of this country at the point of sale. For that reason I rise to speak on this subject of consumer protection.
There are many reasons why this is becoming an increasingly important subject. There is a far wider range of goods from which the buyer can choose, and the average housewife and her husband are not experts in selecting goods. This is particularly true where large amounts of money are being spent. It is no exaggeration to say that the way in which we teach consumer education, the attention which we pay to the protection of the consumer has a direct effect on our standard of living.
Another problem which arises from the wider range of goods is that people are not familiar with many of them. We can buy such complicated goods and machinery in the shops that it is impossible for anyone but the technical expert to understand the complexity of the articles. The failure of a single small component in a transistor radio may cause the failure of the radio. The average consumer connot understand this problem. Modern trends in retailing also have led to a big increase in the range of pre-packed goods, and the housewife can no longer assess the value of goods as she might have done with loose commodities. Pre-packed goods do not always contain an accurate statement or description of the contents inside the wrapper. Consumers are increasingly subjected by producers to high-pressure sales techniques and to television advertising, and this is something with which I shall deal later.
There is the wider use of credit, and consumers are constantly being urged to spend not only their current earnings but their future earnings because the nature of capitalism in the 1960s is that what is produced has to be sold. Markets have to be created even if the goods that are sold are of no value to the community. In order to sell these goods, all sorts of advanced psychological sales techniques are used so as to stimulate consumption. We have a sort of magic circle by which products are bought not only for their own intrinsic value, but because of their

association with status or sexual attraction, or with the image of ourselves that we would like others to believe in. As a result of this, we tend to be perverting the normal common sense approach to buying. We do not judge an article by its quality.
Another feature of this is what was termed by Vance Packard as "planned obsolescence", both as regards durability and desirability. So that sometimes we wear an article out not only physically but because the manufacturers are making it outmoded and are changing the fashion from year to year. This, of course, leads to a great deal of waste of our resources. Because everything is based on profit, those services which are essential to the community tend to be neglected in favour of those which make a profit. This is why our railways, our schools, our hospital service, our council houses and all these things are neglected in this mad rush to sell, in this mad rush for individual consumption.
Also, despite the existence of the Monopolies Commission and the Restrictive Practices Court, there are still very grave dangers to consumers from these organisations of producers and distributors, who fix prices and extract very exorbitant profit margins. Today every consumer naturally seeks value for money. Consumers want, and I think they are entitled to, the best quality of goods for the price that they are prepared to pay. But quality in itself is very difficult to recognise in a legal sense, and although certain protection, which I shall deal with later, is afforded to the consumer by the medium of, say, the Sale of Goods Act, this cannot in any way take account of the question of quality.
The quality of some goods may be very apparent on inspection, particularly if the buyer knows what to look for. But in many cases the quality is concealed by the finish or by the packaging. For example, in the case of a television set, it may well be that there is an excellent cabinet with an excellent finish, but this is no guide to the quality of the machinery inside. Although in the case of weight the net weight may be printed on the label, customers tend to judge by sight, and so we get false bottoms in bottles and bottles with long necks. We have the problem of the salesman who puts his


thumb on the scale, the problem of the little bit of dirt in the pan, the problem of giant-sized packs, of economy-sized packs, of king-sized packs and all the rest. All these things tend to confuse the average consumer.
Traders have also appreciated that the housewife today is willing to pay a little extra, if she believes that she is going to get something of a superior quality. They have exploited that willingness, very often, by fixing prices at a level far higher than necessary, very often in order to indicate some sort of spurious quality attached to the goods. Even without any intention to deceive, the prices do not necessarily bear any close relation to the qualities that the shopper appears to expect. Also, changes have taken place over the last 20 years in the pattern of consumer spending. No longer is the greater proportion of the housewife's money spent on the simple necessities of life. More and more money is spent on holidays, on scooters, no motor cars, on transistor radios, on beauty aids and all the rest.
There is increasingly a need for action to aid the consumer. There is an overwhelming case today for urgent action to be taken for the protection of the consumer against traders who abuse their powers, and this can be done by action on the part of Government, by the sort of educational activities to which my hon. Friend has referred, and by the housewife, the consumer, taking an intelligent interest in this whole question of the quality of goods.
It is apparent that interest in this question of consumer protection is increasing, and this is made particularly apparent by the nature of the debate we are having tonight. It is most astonishing that during a debate on an important subject of such interest to the housewives of this country there are only five hon. Members opposite present. The rest are prepared to sleep while the housewives suffer because of slick salesmen.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I wonder whether the hon. Member will remember that it is not long ago that at this time of night I was speaking and there was not a single person on any of the benches on his side.

Mr. Rose: I am sure it must have been a long time ago, because I was not here.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does my hon. Friend realise that there was a reason for what the hon. Member opposite says happened? It was because the hon. Member was speaking.

Mr. Rose: Far be it from me to be discourteous to the hon. Member. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will be far more acquainted with this particular problem.
There are already, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East said, several non-Governmental bodies which are concerned with consumer protection and which the housewives can approach if necessary. I would mention in particular, as I mentioned it before in an intervention, the work of the Co-operative movement, because unlike other retailers this organisation is, of course, an organisation of consumers and is particularly concerned with consumer protection. [Laughter.] I wonder, when hon. Members opposite scoff how many private firms spend money and devote time as the Co-operative movement does to educating consumers, in trying to create a properly educated body of consumers able to discriminate between different goods which are offered.
Other organisations concerned in this are the Consumers Advisory Council of the British Standards Institute. There is also the Retail Trading Standards Association, the Consumers' Association—

Mr. Fell: rose—

Mr. Rose: I will give way in a moment.

Mr. Fell: Thank you very much.

Mr. Rose: I pay particular tribute to the work of the Consumers' Association and the excellent information service which it provides through its magazine Which? I do not know, but I understand that the circulation it has achieved is already about 250,000, and it may well have passed that figure. It is one of the channels through which information may be imparted to the consumer. I wonder if this sort of service could not be extended through the radio and television. I understand that in Norway, for example, there are regular information services given over the radio in order to guide consumers and to warn consumers against faulty goods and against the sort


of sharp practices to which my hon. Friend referred. Now I will give way.

Mr. Fell: The hon. Member was speaking of co-operative societies. I wondered if he had noticed advertisements on television by which co-operative societies are offering Minis—I am delighted to say they are British Minis—to anybody who can produce certain evidence of Danish goods they have bought. In other words, they are bribing the British public to buy Danish food.

Mr. Rose: I find it remarkable that hon. Members opposite who not so long ago were criticising the Government because of the Government's relations with E.F.T.A., should criticise stimulating trade with E.F.T.A. countries, and particularly with co-operative movements in countries like Denmark, which produce excellent food for the housewives. I am sure that there is no harm in the action taken by the Co-operative movement.
All this interest in consumer protection culminated in the appointment of the Molony Committee on 24th July, 1959. The terms of reference were:
to review the working of the existing legislation relating to merchandise marks and certification trade marks, and to consider and report what changes if any…are desirable for the further protection of the consuming public.
In all, it considered 472 written statements, and 1,918 members of the public wrote letters to it. It is a sad reflection that so few members of the public were willing to submit their private evidence to it. This is perhaps one of the unfortunate features of the British public. We are polite and do not like to offend, and so we often tolerate practices which ought to be stopped.
I shall always remember something I was told by a Scandinavian friend. He said that when he goes into a hotel and finds that a cup from which he is drinking is cracked, he breaks the cup. He takes that direct action to show his attitude towards that kind of shoddy service and bad hygiene. I am not suggesting that one should always try this. On one occasion I attempted it but the cup would not break, and that circumstance can be most embarrassing.

Mr. Harold Lever: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that that practice should be emulated in this House. If it were, there might be difficulty in obtaining tea and coffee.

Mr. Rose: I am not for a moment suggesting that in our refreshment rooms we would ever be served with cracked cups.
However, I point out that the Committee did not consider certain very important factors in relation to consumer protection. It did not consider the question of services. One of the most important grievances of the public is with regard to services, such as repairs to television sets and cars, servicing of cars, and so on. How often do we send our car to the garage and when we get it back wonder exactly what has been done to it, if anything? This is a frequent cause of complaint by the public, but it was not considered by the Molony Committee.
There is also the question of price control. In spite of action taken recently by the Government, in spite of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, in spite of the existing state of the law, we know that recently manufacturers, particularly of chocolate, have forced retail traders to put up their prices.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I draw attention to the fact that there are fewer than 40 Members present.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I drew your attention earlier to the rather disgraceful practice, when we are listening to a debate, of continually getting interruptions—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The Chair must decide what is in order.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Rose: I was saying when I was interrupted—

Mr. Rhodes: Rudely interrupted.

Mr. Rose: I will refrain from referring to hon. Members opposite as—

Mr. William Yates: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member opposite to refer to an hon. Member on this side of the House, who drew the attention of the Chair to the fact that fewer than 40 Members were present, as having rudely interrupted?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it is an improper remark to make and the hon. Gentleman should withdraw it.

Mr. Rhodes: I willingly withdraw the remark, but I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so touchy.

Mr. Rose: I was referring to the fact that the Molony Committee did not consider certain aspects of consumer protection and one of these was the subject of weights and measures. This was dealt with by the Hodgson Committee and an Act at long last found its way on to the Statute Book. However, about that the Molony Committee said:
…we never doubted that before our Report was completed there would be a new Weights and Measures Act on the statute-book. We have been disappointed about this. If our recommendations are accepted in whole or part, we trust that in the interests of the consumer their implementation will not suffer the monumental delay which has characterised the treatment of the Hodgson Committee Report.
We had monumental delay by hon. Gentlemen opposite in respect of the Hodgson Report and the same sort of procrastination about the rest of consumer protection. It is now left to the new Government to deal with the whole subject.
There are certain Acts which afford protection, one of which is the Sale of Goods Act. I had intended to enumerate the various Sections which afford some protection to the consumer, but I will not weary the House and I will only very quickly run through them. Section 12 lays down an implied condition that vendors have the right to sell and there is also the implied warranty that the buyer shall have quiet possession. Section 13 provides that where goods are sold by description there is an implied condition that they shall correspond with the description and, if by sample, with the sample and with the description.

Section 14 provides that in certain conditions goods should be fit for the purpose for which they were bought and, most important of all, that in certain circumstances must be of a merchantable quality.
I draw the attention of the Board of Trade to the widespread practice of contracting out of these provisions. Although these are implied condition, implied warranties, they are susceptible to being contracted out of and the vendor often does this by stating that all conditions of warranty expressed or implied by law are excluded. That does not matter in the case of a manufacturer because, the manufacturer so doing cannot interfere with the relationship between the retailer and the consumer, but it causes a great deal of difficulty, for example, in the sale of cars where distributors act as the agents of the manufacturers. One very often finds that the rights under the Sale of Goods Act are taken away by such spurious warranty and lesser rights substituted. One may have the right to have certain components replaced within a period of, say, six months, but this does not usually include the cost of labour in changing and replacing those parts.
Very often, of course, the labour cost is by far the major part of the total cost. I draw the attention of the House to this particularly reprehensible practice, and suggest that wherever it occurs, as suggested in the magazine Which? we should attempt to strike it out. One may not always be successful, but this action resulted in one large firm of car manufacturers altering its contract. Even liability to negligence may be ruled out on that ground.
In deference to the House, and because many other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not deal with a large number of topics with which I had intended to deal, but there is an over-riding need, and the Molony Committee felt this as well, to protect the consumer against what it called reprehensible pressures exercised in his own home. The Committee put forward various suggestions in respect of hire-purchase agreements signed at a place other than a retail establishment, and I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) pioneered a Bill on precisely this matter.
I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that recently a constituent of mine wrote to me in respect of this Act. He pointed out that the provisions with regard to credit sale agreements apply only when the agreement involves a sum of more than £30, and of course most items sold on the doorstep cost less than that that amount. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would look into this matter.
While on the subject of doorstep salesmen, perhaps I might mention that in my constituency I have come across these reprehensible activities of door-to-door book salesmen, one of whom masqueraded as the secretary of a religious organisation whose object was to sell religious books. In fact this was a spurious organisation set up for purely commercial interests. Then there was the case of the man who said, "I have come from the Moston College of Further Education, where your son is about to take a course and where he will need certain books". He had just come from the College. He had probably walked there from his firm, and then walked to the house.
This sort of conduct is very widespread, and in these cases the average housewife who signs such an agreement thinks that the books are necessary for her child's education. She finds herself in a difficult position, and I hope that action will be taken to prevent this sort of thing happening.
There are a number of matters which I should like to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend concerning consumer protection, and the lack of protection given to the consumer by the existing law. I mentioned the question of warranties which took away rights under the Sale of Goods Act.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is now proposing to discuss matters which are not covered by the existing law, and their remedy would involve new legislation, this is not the debate in which he can do that.

Mr. Rose: I am trying to avoid suggesting future legislation, but I would refer to the fact that the Merchandise

Marks Act was passed long before the days of television advertising, and, without suggesting any changes in legislation, one wonders whether the Act as it now stands could be enforced more stringently. Why is it so often left to voluntary bodies to enforce the law rather than action being taken at a more official level?
A lot could be said about more stringent requirements for labour. A lot could be said about the Consumer Protection Act of 1961, which was pioneered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards), and under which a great many products can be required to conform to certain standards. I wonder whether the House would agree that this is particularly important in respect of dangerous articles such as fireworks.
In my division we have a hospital which contains the burns unit for the whole of the Manchester area. Many tragic cases are admitted to it. It is a children's hospital, and if any hon. or right hon. Member were to walk through its wards and see the results of accidents caused by fireworks, or see the films that have been taken of this kind of accident, I am sure that he would agree that much more should be done to protect children against this danger. I note with pleasure that talks have taken place between the fireworks manufacturers and my right hon. Friend, and that the fireworks manufacturers have agreed to put a cap on bangers. I wonder why it is impossible for them also to put a plastic cap on sparklers, because one of the most serious forms of accident is that which occurs when these fireworks are in the pocket and are accidently ignited.
I hope that swift action will be taken on this matter and that there will be no yielding to the vested interests of the fireworks manufacturers, who are not concerned with the lives and safety of children. Far too much is subordinated to the interests of private profit and private greed rather than the welfare of the community. Under the Consumer Protection Act one has to prove that regulations are necessary. This usually means that some accident has to happen before any action is taken by the Government. Regulations can be made by the Home Secretary, but I wonder why this matter is not dealt with by the Board of Trade. I suggest that the powers


provided by this Act are not great enough.
I now turn to the question of hygiene standards. Could not there be many more prosecutions than there are? We should enforce the present legislation more stringently. Could we introduce a form of quality labelling, and minimum standards below which it would be illegal to produce certain types of goods? Could not we study the action taken in Scandinavian countries in consumer welfare?
There is one aspect of the law relating to consumers which ought to be mentioned. Not long ago I took one of the few suits that I possess to the cleaners. Unfortunately, they lost it. When I read my contract carefully I found that there was a provision in very small type at the bottom of the form that I had signed saying that the firm would not take responsibility for the loss, and in any event would not pay more than £10 towards the cost of the suit. These standardform contracts are iniquitous, because the two parties concerned are not on an equal level. One party is entirely at the mercy of the other.
The high-water mark of this was the case of Thompson v. L.M.S., where a poor lady bought a railway ticket and went on an excursion. The ticket said, "For conditions see back", and on the back it said, "See conditions on time-table", and on the timetable it said that the railway company would take no responsibility for accidents. The lady stepped off the train before it arrived at the station, with disastrous results. As all those who are familiar with this case know, that lady failed to obtain any damages because of the provisions on the ticket.
The law on this matter is very complicated. It would be possible to spend hours discussing it. I have no such intention, but the point is—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it seems to me that he will only get his suit back by amending the law, and he cannot propose to amend the law in this debate.

Mr. Rose: I respectfully accept your Ruling, but I would like to draw this to the attention of my hon. Friend. I would also like to deal with the question of mis-

representation, where again one may feel that the existing law is inadequate.
I would like to say a word on the subject of television advertising. This does come very strongly under the head of consumer protection. Indeed, the whole matter was dealt with thoroughly in the Pilkington Report, but the Maloney Committee thought fit to point out:
Although it has been recognised that the impact of television is so forceful and intimate, especially on the young, that this requires a heightened standard of restraint peculiar to itself it is questionable whether a proper level of restraint has been achieved.
Of course there is a great difficulty here because of the financial pull of the advertiser. But the Committee said:
We have viewed with disgust an advertisement in which a manufacturer of toilet paper deliberately played upon fear of poliomyelitis in order to suggest—very vaguely—that his product might offer a certain amount of protection.
Some sort of machinery is needed to safeguard the consumer from advertising of this kind.
In the last 100 years the growth of advertising has been such that far from being the simple art of the small manufacturer or retailer it has now become a major part of business organisation. It is increasingly a source of finance for a whole range of media of mass communication. Our major television service is prone to the pressure of advertising, and newspapers and periodicals cannot exist without it. It is going further than merely advertising the goods. Advertising today tends to touch our personal values and become the visual art of our contemporary society. It is sometimes a perversion of our economy and it is wasteful. It is almost an insidious form of totalitarianism with its peculiar psychological brain-washing techniques, and it is very often harmful culturally.
It is not my intention to make an indiscriminate attack on advertising. Certain forms of advertising are helpful, but one questions £400 or £500 million a year spent on advertising when some of our public services, such as roads and hospitals and the rest, are neglected. It is true that contemporary society cannot function with advertising, but it leads to skimping on the product in order to pay for advertising costs. Advertising must produce customers, just as factories


must produce goods in a growing economy. The extent of advertising is increasing every year, and 25 billion dollars is spent annually in the United States on advertising. What I am concerned with primarily is the method of putting these things over—someone is not using Amplex, this kind of car, this kind of girl. The whole question of human relationships becomes a matter of commercial commodities to be bought or sold, and we buy things because they are correct status symbols, not because they are the best articles. We buy beer not because it is a good drink, but because it will make us virile or neighbourly.
Most of advertising today is an irrelevance. We buy a car not because it is a pleasant or useful means of transport, but because of the aura round the car, the hotel canopy, the gloved hand or the girl around the car. So what we are buying is not the reality but the image of the article.
Perhaps I might deal with that very well-known item that "Top people take The Times." That is again a typical example of appealing to status. The acquisition of material possessions is not something to be despised and it is not something to be opposed. But material possessions have a use. We buy a car because it is useful, not because it gives us status. There are reasons for being successful in one's job, quite apart from the question of status. My submission is that the influence of advertising is very harmful in giving the wrong social values to the community and, in particular, to our children. I do not want to blame indivdual advertisers or people caught up in the advertising industry, because most of us in our private lives have to do our jobs, whether we like them or not.
I would like to go on from advertising to the question raised by my hon. Friend in relation to the Consumer Council. The best known of the Molony Committee's recommendations was the recommendation for the setting up of a Consumer Council.
to review the problems experienced by the consumer, and to advise and advance the means of resolving them.

it may be said that the best safeguard of the consumer is a knowledge and understanding of the products bought. But a great deal can be done by the Consumer Council, and I would like to go a little further and follow up the suggestion that was made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East that it is about time we considered the possibility of a Minister of Consumer Protection—a whole department devoted to the question of consumer protection which would funnel out information to the consumer, perhaps by some of the media that I referred to before.
In Norway, for example, they have a State Consumers' Council, established as a result of pressure from women's organisations. This submits reports on consumer interests in matters under consideration by the Government. It promotes research, it promotes standardisation, it promotes the quality marking of goods, and so on. It also provides information services for consumers, and, as I have said, it gives radio warnings of worthless goods.
They also have a Minister of Consumer Welfare with Cabinet rank, and I wonder whether perhaps we might not progress in the near future to the position where we have a Minister of Consumer Protection, perhaps with Cabinet rank. As I said at the outset, we are becoming increasingly a consumer orientated society. The movement represented on the Government benches should be particularly concerned with the protection of the consumer. Throughout the past century we have fought in every way for the advance of the worker on the shop floor. We have fought for the rights of the individual against vested interests and against those who seek to exploit the individual. I wonder if, in this highly consumer conscious society where there is an increasing level of consumption which will go on increasing, we might not direct our attention more to this method of helping our people, to this method of helping the individual.
I hope some at least of these comments will have been helpful to my right hon. Friend in deciding what action to take in the years to come.

Orders of the Day — MIDDLE EAST (JORDAN WATERS)

4.9 a.m.

Mr. William Yates: I have no desire to cause distress by upsetting the Ministerial Front Bench, but I want to point out to the House that, although I have been present since 11 p.m. and I have been greatly interested in the subjects raised by hon. Members on the Government benches, I do not want to discuss the subject of consumer councils.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: Before the present subject was raised, the other four subjects were raised by hon. Members on the Opposition side.

Mr. Yates: I cannot go into that myself. All I can say is that on the Consolidated Fund Bill, once an hon. Member has been called by the Chair, he is here to present a point of view to the House on any subject he desires. I apologise to the Minister of State, Board of Trade, if it is inconvenient for him, but both the Foreign Office and the Leader of the House, as well as both Front Benches, have been warned that I considered that some time during the course of the Consolidated Fund Bill attention should be paid to the affairs of state which are taking place in other parts of the world.
I hope that the House will bear with me, because on the chances that I have had to speak on foreign affairs over the last year it has not been my fortune to be called. Therefore, now that I have the Floor of the House, I have some urgent matters to bring to the attention of hon. Members. I have noticed, for example, on the Order Paper of the House, references to the use of gas in Vietnam. I have seen another Motion on the Order Paper concerning the use of gas in the Yemen. If the House would be kind enough to bear with me, I should like to go in for about 20 minutes of discussion of just where this country is going in the Middle East.
Let us look carefully at the world situation. There are two great voids, the loss of President Kennedy and the disappearance of Khrushchev. Therefore, the whole world situation must be

re-examined in that light. Secondly, there are only two people or groups who are in command of the situation. The statesmen of the world who really count are Chou En-lai and Mao Tse-tung, and General de Gaulle.
We have, therefore, to consider not only that some of the greatest statesmen are missing from the platform of the world when two great countries are on the collision course. We have also to recognise that the United Nations is partially paralysed. Therefore, I cannot see how a great debating chamber like the House of Commons cannot afford for a few moments in the course of one evening to concentrate its attention on British interests in the world.
While all this unease is developing, an even worse situation is arriving in the Middle East in which we are bound to be involved. As, throughout my parliamentary life, I have devoted most of my speeches to foreign affairs, I must tonight, even at this late hour, give the country, my constituents and this House one, and only one, warning which I gave prior to the Suez crisis in 1956. My warnings at that time—

Mr. Stan Newens: On a point of order. I should like to know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) is in order in raising this matter at this stage as No. 22 among the list of topics for debate deals precisely with this subject.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Any hon. Gentleman is entitled to raise any subject during the debate. The list in the Lobby is only a general guide of what hon. Members have indicated to Mr. Speaker they would like to raise. An hon. Member is perfectly entitled to raise any subject.

Mr. Yates: I am sorry if I have given the hon. Member displeasure in this matter, but I wanted to discuss this subject, and I now intend to exert my right, as he can exert his.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens), I think it is true, with no disrespect to him, that he was not aware—as we are, as older hon. Members of the House—that it is


right that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) and any hon. Member has the right to raise any subject he likes. I think it was because my hon. Friend thought that he would not have the opportunity to get back to the subject in which he is interested that he was worried. We can, of course, get back to any subject we like.

Mr. Yates: I am sure that the hon. Member for Epping will be able to get back to the subject if he is called.

Mr. Newens: I have waited very patiently, and hoped that it would be possible to raise this matter later on in the debate. Having sat and waited patiently for it, I wanted to find out when it would be possible for me to deal with this subject, particularly in view of the fact that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have been saying that we have been using this debate merely to play out time, which, in my case, is not so—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman makes such long interventions, he will exhaust his right to speak.

Mr. Yates: I cannot possibly argue with the hon. Member for Epping about what his hon. Friends are doing. I am here as a House of Commons man. I have sat through many debates on Consolidated Fund Bills, until five, six and seven o'clock in the morning. It is up to hon. Members to be here and to know when other hon. Members are called and what subject they will raise. I notified Mr. Speaker and the Foreign Office.
In 1956, at the Conservative Party Conference of that time, I felt, from experience in the Middle East—both living in the countries there and in service with the Foreign Office administration and the Army—that a major crisis of enormous intensity was about to break on us. The man who warned me was Sir Edward Hulton of the Picture Post, who came to me in Cairo in 1955 and said that we should get home to Sir Anthony Eden and warn him that we considered that there would be a major crisis in relations in the Middle East, in which our country was bound to be involved. At that party conference, I warned the country of an impending crisis. I know that I did not speak politely enough at the time, and my words of warning were not

heeded. I repeat them tonight, and perhaps on this occasion both the House and the country will hear me.
It is quite clear that the situation in the Middle East has resolved round two very important countries, Israel and the U.A.R. In this country's discussions and foreign policy, anything which does not take into account Britain's relationship with the U.A.R. and the State of Israel must be founded on a false base. Therefore, it is essential that, before the Press start working things up and abusing people's minds one way or another, the people of the country should get balanced arguments from somebody like me. If I am wrong, if I offend on one side or the other, I have no doubt that hon. Members will endeavour to correct my point of view or the facts which I put to them.
There has been no peace in the Middle East since 1948. There is not a peace treaty between the State of Israel and the Arab world. That is a fundamental fact and the first thing to realise is that there are two great fears. There is, first, the fear by the State of Israel that the Soviet Union and the Communist world will so arm the Arab States with all the modern arms that they can get that they will be forced to fight a defensive war and be driven eventually out of the land which they now occupy. That is fear number one, and I am not now saying whether it is reasonable or unreasonable; but unless that fear exists the money from Zionists throughout the world would not be so freely forthcoming.
Let me make my position clear. I will not be pro one side or the other and I hope that my personal Jewish friends in Paris, New York and London will thank me for what I am going to say tonight because some of them find it extremely difficult and often very embarrassing to have to make the sort of statements I am going to make.
I have given the fear which Israel has for her security. I do not think it is necessary because she has a fine army, which is extremely well equipped, and so far no Arab State has mounted any major attack in formation—harassing yes, but no formation attack—on her.
Secondly, there is the fear of the Arab States. Their homeland, Palestine, had a small Jewish minority in it of about


500,000 people. That has now gone up to 2½ million. At the Peace Conference of 1919 the World Zionist Organisation claimed—and laid down perfectly plainly; it can be read in any book—that the State of Israel would have 5 million people, would extend down to Sinaia—so understand the Suez operation, when one knew that as the background—all the west bank of the Jordan, including the headwaters of the Jordan, the Hasban and Banias rivers.
Therefore, naturally the Arab States fear that Israel will get more, more and more people, will require more and more land, will have at some time to take more of their land from them—and this is the important point—and in order to feed these people, will require more water. That is what the problem is really about; the sharing of the waters of the Jordan.
They are the two great fears, finely balanced on either side. Let us consider exactly what the water problem is. Everybody must know—or if they do not they should—that the Israel Government have constructed a pipeline from Lake Tiberias to Fluga in the South Negev and intends to divert—indeed, is diverting—the waters of the Jordan about 120 miles out of the Jordan Basin, something unheard of in river water agreements because in river basin agreements the water is usually shared in the valley. So this operation and this pumping station is already drawing water. So the waters are already being diverted.
The Arab States have never been able to come to an exact agreement, because they do not recognise Israel. They do not want to do anything to make her more secure, so there have been three major attempts to get a Jordan water agreement in that valley. The first—the Bunger scheme, by the American working with Point Four—was perfectly satisfactory to Jordan and Syria. The second scheme which was put forward was not accepted by the Arab States because it did not take into account the political settlement over the refugees that they thought was necessary. That was known as the Johnson Plan.
So here we have a situation that is now fraught with danger. Why? The Arab States have announced that in order to safeguard the waters that they require, they intend to pump water out of the

Hasbani and over into the Litani, and the Prime Minister of Israel, who is in London tonight, has announced that if they attempt to do this it will be a cause of war. In addition, President Nasser has already announced that he considers that the State of Israel will make an attack on the Arab States this year. I therefore do not think it possible for this House, and the country, not to consider its position, and what it should do in the present circumstances.
Let us, therefore, examine the exact situation, and how we find ourselves today. I shall not take any sides on the question of the Suez crisis, because that raises the temperature of the House. It raises the temperature of discussion to such an extent that in some places it is not even safe to mention the crisis, because everyone orders nine pink gins, and says, "Down with the wogs," or words to that effect. People go off their rockers when the subject is mentioned. Nevertheless, the situation has to be faced, and faced fairly and squarely.
There is no denying, and I think that Randolph Churchill got it right, that if this country had known the facts which I knew in 1955 and 1956, and of which I tried to warn the House and the country, it could never have agreed to the Suez operation that it attempted to undertake at the time. We could have done the operation, politically, with France and ourselves alone, but having ourselves used the State of Israel as a secret ally, though for France it was an open alliance, we prejudiced gravely the whole of our position in the Middle East.
We lost £2,000 million and a great deal of our trade, and every man and woman in this country must know that our interest lies in the free flow of power—oil and gas—from the Arab lands of the Middle East. That is our interest. That is the one thing that makes our economy function, that makes the Treasury function, and which we could not be without. We tried it when the pipelines were cut in Syria—we had no oil—

Mr. Arthur Palmer: If I may speak just on a point of accuracy, this country is now far less dependent on Middle East oil than it was. There has been a great switch in the last five years or so.

Mr. Yates: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right about the switch to Libya, the possibility of supplies of gas from under the North Sea, and so forth. All these things are coming, but, nevertheless, anyone one talks to in the City or anyone who knows about the oil of the Middle East will say that, for the next ten or fifteen years, the Persian Gulf and Kuwait will still be the biggest factor. So we must consider how to protect our country's interests in this vital sector of our economy.
This is the major theme: how do we secure our interests in the modern world? Where, and how, do we conduct our affairs in the Middle East?
There is a line of thought that, if one wishes to make Israel part of Great Britain, which it is not, or to create special arrangements with her for strategic reasons, one will offend the entire Arab world. I do not believe that such a policy would be successful. But one must remember how many leading Zionists warned people in this country and elsewhere that, once the State of Israel was created, they would automatically have dual loyalty. It cannot be helped. The Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Montagu Norman, the Sebag-Montefiores, the Brandeis family in America—they all said, "If you create the State of Israel, you will create throughout the Western world people with a dual loyalty".
It is a most difficult problem emotionally, financially and otherwise, for some people to decide where their loyalties lie in a conflict in the Middle East. This country cannot afford another Suez crisis or getting itself entangled by taking one side or working on one side or the other. All my friends in Paris, in Washington or in London who are connected closely with the Israel Government must not, I implore them, press their Prime Minister to buy British Chieftain tanks during the next three or four months. The disclosure in this morning's paper that the British Government have supplied gas, the same sort of gas as has been used in Vietnam, to the Israel Government will already have had its devastating repercussions throughout the Middle East. We must be very careful with whom and how we conduct our foreign policy in the Middle East, taking into account that there will

be a serious crisis over the Jordan water. I am not saying that our country should not provide defensive weapons to the Israel Government, but they must take the situation into account and not enter into arms deals and upset the balance of arms in the Middle East at the present time.
Any Western Government, whether of France, the United States or Great Britain, must clear their mind about these developments in the Middle East and put their cards straight down. Either they will be the secret allies of Israel or they will maintain their oil interests which are vital to them. If there is a crisis, I fear that not only will the oilfields be nationalised but there may be a serious disruption of oil supplies.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: This is an extremely important point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has checked his facts. Is he now saying that this Government have supplied poison gas for warfare purposes to the Government of Israel?

Mr. Yates: These are very important matters. I am weighing extremely carefully what I am saying. I have to be extremely careful. I am, I hope, going to the Middle East shortly and I would never say anything that I thought would make the situation worse. I am trying to bring the House to the frame of mind in which we can get the matter into perspective.
The Daily Mail yesterday, on its front page, gave a notification of a statement by, I believe, the United States Defence Department, that gas of a similar sort used in Vietnam has been used by the British Government in Cyprus and Singapore and that the British Government have exported some of this gas to Israel and Indonesia.

Mr. Colin Jackson: Would the hon. Gentleman remind the House that, of course, this gas was used in Cyprus and Singapore not under the present Government and that the supply to Israel was also made before the present Government took office?

Mr. Yates: I am not going to start on that line. I am dealing with missing myths here at the moment but do not let it be said that I was attributing to your Government actions which they


have not taken, but your Government have supplied—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have no Government.

Mr. Yates: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Her Majesty's Government have, in fact, supplied a large quantity of arms to Saudi Arabia. I have here a reply from the former Foreign Secretary on the matter. I said I would raise it in an Adjournment debate, but now that I am pressed I will raise the point now.
The former Foreign Secretary, whom I respect, used red ink in saying so. He was taking a right away from another distinguished person in the Middle East because, by the laws of the Byzantine Empire, only the Archbishop of Cyprus is permitted to sign official letters in red ink. This was a very interesting thing for me. The supply of arms to Saudi Arabia was authorised by this Government. Supplies of arms are also being brought in from the other side of Saudi Arabia, and if they are arms in that quantity, and if they are new arms for the National Guard of Saudi Arabia, where, may I ask, are the second-hand rifles likely to go which they are now replacing?
I do not know that these rifles are going down into the Yemen disputed area but I would have thought that it would be imprudent of Her Majesty's Government to supply arms to Saudi Arabia at the present time and that, if arms were needed, they could well have been supplied by the United States. For a Labour Government to be in the arms running racket is more than even I can endure. I can only say that I received that letter from the former Foreign Secretary with deep regret. I did not and still do not understand the purpose behind it. That deals with that point.
Let me get back to where we were in discussing how we can deal with the situation that is developing. It is clear that Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, when he was Leader of the Opposition, was correct in his statement that he considered that no Middle East solution for the safety of either Israel or the Arab States could occur without an agreement between Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union and France. I would have thought that this is one of the most vital

things that must be done now. I hope that high on the agenda of any discussions by the Foreign Ministers is which Powers will guarantee the present frontiers of Israel. I hope that the Government are taking an initiative in this matter; if not, they should do so.
If Syria and Lebanon start constructing a pumping station on the Esbani and Benares rivers, I hope that the Israeli Army will not go out at once and seize the whole of the area and present the Great Powers with a fait accompli. I hope that that will not be permitted or tolerated.
It may be said that it is all very well for an hon. Member such as myself to be critical, but what suggestions have I to make and what suggestions dare I make in public? If the Arab States wish to preserve their water rights they should form an organisation to conserve and protect them, and they should be able to discuss, through the United Nations or any other organisation of which they approve, how much water Israel is removing from the Jordan. This is one way in which the temperature could be lowered. It is clear that major decisions of foreign policy in the Middle East must be taken on these lines.
If this country and other countries go on playing around in the Middle East, trying to set one State against another, we shall be in a very awkward position because people will suspect that we are following two important principles of the foreign policy of Israel. The first is to make sure that British bases remain in the Middle East so that we can be called upon to help them at a moment's notice. The second is to divide the Arab States at every opportunity. Many Front Bench speakers from both sides of the House have pointed out that if our foreign policy is right there is nothing wrong with Arab nationalism and that it need not run counter to any British interests in the Middle East.
How does one approach the problem? There are two keys in the Middle East—the U.A.R. and Syria. All the communications run through those countries. Open any air route map and see how many aircraft pass down that lateral link communicating with the free world. The first important issue is our relations with the U.A.R.—and I am sorry to say that they are shocking. The situation is very


unfortunate and very unhappy. We are both faced with a difficult problem. We have armies in South-West Arabia, and both those armies should not be there. The U.A.R. have 50,000 troops in the Yemen fighting to maintain their position and to support the Republican régime in the Yemen; and we have an army in Aden—doing what? Nobody quite knows. Presumably, it is to make quite sure that the sheikhs remain in power in the sheikhdoms. For why have we given £3 million to the Federal Army if it is not for the purpose of maintaining the power of the sheikhs in the sheikhdoms?
Therefore, clearly, the object of British foreign policy must be quite simply to enable the U.A.R. to be able to extract its forces out of the Yemen so that we, likewise, will be able to extract our forces out of the Aden area. How is this to be achieved when the U.A.R. Government are suspicious that, through the Sheikh of Beihar, or through second or third parties, arms are going, have been going and are getting to the Royalists in the North? That is going to make the civil war carry on even longer. Far from putting the U.A.R. in a position to be able to get its forces out, more arms to the Royalists, more trouble in the North, means that the U.A.R. forces will have to stay. So that would not be a sensible line to adopt. Vice versa the Republican forces in the Yemen, or their agents, are now sending freedom fighters who are throwing bombs into British settlements and injuring our soldiers in Aden.
So whatever has been said on the high policy, it is clear that both sides suspect one another. We suspect them of sending people to cause trouble in Aden, and they suspect us for sending people to support the Royalists. How are we to get over that, because, clearly, that situation cannot go on. It will flare up into something far more serious.
Now I have to say that I regret that the Leader of the Opposition is not here. I did warn him that I was going to say something about the past tonight, and he asked me to speak to his P.P.S., the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Frank Pearson). Last January the Republican Government of the Yemen were most anxious to get better relations with Her Majesty's Government, and, in particular,

to try to sort out the conflict which they were almost certain was going to develop. Therefore, I was able to see the Foreign Minister of the Republican Government of the Yemen in Cairo, and he and those who were with him put forward ordinary and sensible suggestions to ease relations between the British Protectorate in Aden and the Yemen. These arrangements were perfectly fair and they would have worked on either side. They were brought back and given to the Foreign Secretary, they were discussed and they were not accepted. There were some remarks that, perhaps, better feelings could be generated with United Nations' assistance. Shortly afterwards, after the Yemenis had been causing trouble in the northern areas, the Government decided to blast the fort at Harib. I want to know one thing. Before we blasted the fort of Harib, did the Yemen Republican Government or their representatives warn us that if we did this they would open up terrorism and internal fighting in Aden and in the Protectorate? Because if they did give us clear warning, and if we, outright, rejected a genuine offer made by them, by which they said they thought international treaties as they stood should be observed, then the Government in charge at that time, to my mind, should be condemned.
During the most critical time, when one hoped that relations would improve between our country and the U.A.R., the Leader of the Opposition spoke in the United States and was asked a question on television about what he thought of the troubles in Panama, and over the networks of the United States he is said to have said that it would have been very much better if during the Suez crisis the Americans had let Great Britain deal with the Egyptians as she wanted to. That statement, coming from a former Foreign Secretary, who ought to have known its implications, must have been the most critical embarrassment to our Ambassador in Cairo and to every Ambassador throughout the Middle East. It is a matter of the most terrible regret and must have made their task very difficult.
So I have some sympathy with the Government coming into the position in which they find themselves now. I am just wondering, though, whether they are in charge of foreign policy yet or not.


There seems to me to be the same trend going on. I see no major reverse of policy or any making of headway in improving relations with the U.A.R. I know they desire to improve them, and I perfectly agree that the broadcasts over Cairo Radio do nothing but damage to the good intentions which the Government have or desire to have with the U.A.R. I hope that at the right time the Minister will be able to tell the House and the country, in view of what must be another Suez crisis on the horizon, what is Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy towards the U.A.R., and towards the Government and the State of Israel.
I must say that I am sorry to detain the House for this length of time on these matters, but they must be of concern to every hon. Member. When one reads the Press and one finds that stories given on one side are not quite fair to the other, one must remember that certain of our national newspapers have got the problem which I mentioned to the House earlier; they have got the problem of editorial alliances—I go no further than that—and problems within the State of Israel, and this is a very grave difficulty for them.
So, in conclusion, I must ask the Government now, when British lives are being lost in Aden, are we going to go through it all again?—the Canal Zone, 1952, Cyprus, 1955? And are we now going to be faced with attempting to hold a base in an area which we may not any longer want? Do we desire to hold this base by force, or do we desire that it shall be a Commonwealth base and also be available for the United Nations? What the Minister shows to be the ideas of the Government on how our bases should be used and their purposes will be most helpful to the House and the country.
I realise that the Minister does not accept that the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 has any validity now. Then, what is in its place? This was the key to foreign policy in the Middle East both for the safety of Israel and for the safety of the Arab States. What is our attitude to the Jordan waters? Are we to go on supplying more arms to Saudi Arabia? The good name of this country is involved in all these things.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We on this side know how courageous the hon. Gentleman has been over the years, and we know that he speaks with sincerity. He spoke of the Leader of the Opposition not being here. I, too, regret it. Has he attempted to discuss this privately with, or given any notice to, the Leader of the Opposition? I agree with him that, in view of the Leader of the Opposition's actions in the past, particularly at the time of Suez, it would have been nice to know what the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition is to this.

Mr. Yates: I spoke to the office of the Leader of the Opposition this morning and gave notice that I should be raising an important matter tonight concerning the speech he made in the United States and the effect it had on our ambassadors in the Middle East. His secretary said that I could find his Parliamentary Private Secretary, but I have not been able to do so. If there is any argument about the matter, we will argue it out tomorrow. It does not worry me.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Is my hon. Friend talking about the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister? Perhaps I might point out that the subject on which he is speaking was put on the list only a short time ago. It was not on the list this morning.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition is not the responsibility of the Government. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) must relate what he is saying to matters for which the Government are administratively responsible.

Mr. Yates: I would ask the hon. Member to realise that if the Leader of the Opposition thought that this debate or my remarks were of any consequence, he would have been here, or one of my other right hon. Friends would have been here.
I ask the Government to let the country and the Middle East know exactly what we are trying to achieve in the Middle East, how we are to protect our oil interests, in what way we can protect our interests and the interests of our people, what future there is for our forces in Aden, what their purpose is there, and


how we resee the political arrangements being made in that area.
I am glad that the Secretary of State is here. I told him that I would raise this whole problem tonight. If I have been rather long, it is only because in previous foreign affairs debates I have not had the opportunity of bringing these matters before the House. If any hon. Members feel that I have offended them or have not acted with courtesy, they need not worry; they can argue it out with me tomorrow.
I warned the country in 1956 and I am doing it again tonight for the last time. If the present Government, of all people, get themselves into a Suez crisis—I hope they will not do so—they have nobody else to blame but themselves.

Orders of the Day — CONSUMER PROTECTION

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) has fully upheld the reputation which he has achieved in the House over many years for courage and independence, and I am sure that no hon. Member on this side of the House resented his intervention. We welcomed it and listened with great interest. I enjoyed it and I wish that I had the detailed knowledge of the situation in the Middle East which he has to enable me to comment on what he said. He will forgive me if I exercise the right which he exercised in the terms of this debate and return the House, for a relatively short time as far as I am concerned, to the subject of consumer protection. I do not at all resent that we should have left it. It was an interesting interval and of great profit to me personally, but I came here intending to speak on consumer protection and on consumer protection I intend to speak.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) introduced the debate with great force and clarity and rendered a service to the House by raising the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) followed him with great lucidity and penetration. Each of my hon. Friends dealt with individual cases, as they had the possibility to do,

but I propose to discuss the subject in more general terms.
Listening to my hon. Friends speaking with such eloquence, it occurred to me that this kind of discussion would have been very foreign, very strange to a mediaeval peasant, because he was not in a position to consume very much. Nearer our own time, an unemployed worker in the 1930s would have thought it very strange, for he also was not in a position to consume very much. The great bulk of the world's population today would find it curious that we should discuss consumer protection with so much interest when most human beings are not in a position to consume very much.
In other words, the reflection occurred to me that this was a subject connected with the high level of consumption in mainly Western industrialised societies. There are two reasons why consumer protection has become important in recent years in this country and the United States and other highly industrialised Western countries.
First, generally full employment gives tremendous advantages to the citizen in his capacity as a worker and as a producer. The trade unions, organised in free industrial societies, find themselves to a great extent in a seller's market. They can demand, and often obtain, thank goodness, the highest possible wages or salaries. Therefore, social cheating at the expense of the worker is not so easy today as it was in the past. I am talking of the economic categories. It is not as easy as it was in the past to cheat socially at the expense of the producer, and hence it is the consumer who now very often becomes the main subject of exploitation by those who are anxious for quick returns and easy money, and sometimes large profits if they can be obtained. That is the first reason why consumer protection has come so much to the front and makes it a matter which should receive urgent attention by my hon. Friend's Department.
The second reason why it has come so much to the front is that competition is no longer, if it ever was, an entirely effective protection for the consumer. The right to go elsewhere if one does not like what one gets in one shop, or in one store, does not mean so much


today as it did in the past, because if one goes round the corner to the other shop, or to the other store, one finds that the product there is the same as it was in the first shop or store.
Modern advertising—and my hon. Friends dealt with this—is of great value and is inseparable from the efficient working of a modern industrial society, but it tends to numb the critical faculties, however helpful it may be in drawing attention to something new.
One must realise, too, that many products are so tastefully and seductively packed that it is almost impossible for the consumer to compare the good with the not so good. Perhaps I might give the House an example which often rivets itself on my thoughts and feelings. I know that many Members are sensible enough to leave the buying of their shirts to their wives, but I do not do that. I buy my own. It just happens to be a domestic custom in my family for me to do so, it is no reflection on my wife, her industry and her taste I hasten to add.
Now I am baffled, bogged down, and bewildered by the boxes in which the shirts come. As a consumer, I have never ask that shirts should be put in boxes in this way. I have never been able to find anyone who wants shirts to be put into boxes. What is more, unless one takes out all the pins and the little plastic bits that go round the top of the shirt, it cannot be worn without serious damage to one's throat.
Also when a shirt is packed in a box, only the front of it is visible. This makes it very difficult to compare shirts; to decide which is a good shirt before buying it.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

5.10 a.m.

Mr. Palmer: If I was a little facetious on the subject of shirts and the boxes they come in it was only in order to make my point more forcefully.
This way of packaging things so that their quality cannot easily be discovered is becoming nothing more than an abuse. Why should not a man be allowed to try on a shirt before buying it, in the same

way that a woman tries on a dress? If she is a discerning woman she is thus able to compare qualities, and usually does.
I submit that the curse of packaging has gone much too far. Packaging may make for ease of handling, and I suppose that in a supermarket it is essential, but I shall be glad if my hon. Friend can give the House his views on this modern retailing practice of putting so many pigs in pokes, so that it is impossible to get at them.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: Before my hon. Friend leaves the tale of the shirt, I put it to him that it is not only a question of not being able to discover what size the shirt is; the packaging precludes the discovery of exactly how much heavy dressing has been put into the shirt to make it appear to be of good quality.

Mr. Palmer: I could not agree more. Perhaps "fraud" and "deception" are too strong words, but altogether this practice does not give the would-be customer an opportunity of deciding the true value of the goods. We are sometimes told by the extreme advocates of free competition that the consumer is king, but I have been unable to find any consumer who wants to have his shirts put up in boxes, but he must have it done.

Mr. Harold Lever: Can my hon. Friend assist the House by telling it why manufacturers of shirts, in obstinate defiance of the unanimous wish of the public—as discovered by my hon. Friend—not to have shirts packed in boxes, succeed nevertheless in selling their shirts in boxes? Why does not one of them venture to attempt to satisfy the universal wish and capture the entire market by supplying shirts without boxes?

Mr. Palmer: I have no immediate complete answer available, but as far as I can see everyone is in the conspiracy to put shirts in boxes. I am sure that the customers have not been consulted. Although that lends force to my argument, it was by way of being a digression. I make the point again that competition by itself is not enough in these days. I am not against competition in the retail field. I am a Socialist, and a convinced Socialist, and I believe there is everything to be said for public ownership in large-scale industry, and a lot to


be said against too much competition in large-scale industry because it leads to duplication, capital wastage, and stands in the way of proper planning. But I also believe there is everything to be said for genuine competition in the retail field.
I hope that under this Government, which I support, we shall have a lot more competition in the retail field and that monopolies and restrictive practices will be broken down to the benefit of the consumer. The consumer needs competition in retailing and he does not get enough.
Price is not always any guide to quality either. I read the publication Which? and I must disagree a little with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. G. Rhodes) when he seemed to suggest that Which? was not widely read by the whole population. I find that there are readers of Which? in all sections of the population and in all occupations. I myself find it a most useful publication. Which? recently gave some facts and prices about an article which is known as "the little black dress".
Now I have never worn a little black dress, although I have worn a shirt of course, as I have explained. But I know that the little black dress is a very standard piece of female equipment. Which?, in a most interesting passage in an issue this year, gave some prices for a little black dress. Apparently the most you can pay for a little black dress, and it is staggering to the male intelligence, and I expect that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I may say so, will be startled to know this, is £66, and you can also get one for only £2.

Mr. Harold Lever: So what?

Mr. Palmer: I am coming to that. My hon. Friend is a little impatient. You can get them at £66, £2, £17 and six guineas. A panel of very competent judges studied them, felt them, and judged them as one does judge a little black dress, I suppose, and came to the conclusion that the best value in every way was the dress at six guineas. Most of us, I suppose, would probably have thought that it would be the most expensive dress. This was an investigation carried out by that excellent organisation Which? and it must give us a little thought when we

find that in our industrial market economy, price is not necessarily by itself any guide to quality.
It is for this reason we have had this great growth of consumer associations. As a democrat, I think that it is a fine thing that there should be this growth of these organisations. They are excellent. They have done a vast amount to stimulate the critical faculty among consumers. So far I think these consumer associations, although they are very frank indeed in their opinions, go into great detail and say things which in the ordinary way would be regarded as very damaging against many products, have achieved a remarkable immunity from legal actions. I think they are generally telling the truth, and if those who are attacked or criticised in this way are sensible they will try to mend their ways and improve. If they risk taking action in the courts, it may be they will expose themselves the more and that is why they do not do it.
What I think is good and what I should like my hon. Friend's opinion about is the consumer associations, particularly the Consumers' Association itself which publishes Which? They do seem genuinely independent, and I hope and pray they will remain that way. There was a time, I believe, when the motoring journals gave fairly objective reports on motor cars. That was in the early days, of course, but it has long since ceased to be the case. It is only now when we have Which? with its car supplement that the consumer is able to get back to those days.
After all, we do not always have a car for pleasure but through sheer necessity, and it is not something which applies to any one section of the population. The quality of cars is of great interest to us all, and it is only now, as a result of the Which? car supplement, that we are able to get frank talking about the quality of cars and their performance. Although at one time, as I say, the motoring journals set out to do this, they have abandoned that practice, and they seem to have got entirely into the hands of the manufacturers themselves.
I hope, therefore, consumer associations will retain their objectivity and will not in any way be seduced by pressures that might in the future be placed upon them.
Now I will declare my interest as a co-operator, because I think another great form of self-help for the consumer is the co-operative movement of this country. They are consumers on a voluntary basis. They come together to provide goods and services for others. They employ their own managers, administrators, technical people and the rest of it. They have an opportunity—and I am sorry more co-operators do not take advantage of it—at quarterly and other meetings of the societies to discuss as part of the mechanics of their own business such questions as the quality of goods and services and criticisms that can be lodged against the practical working out of co-operation. Allowing for the fact that it is an imperfect world in which we live, we can look still to the co-operative movement of this country—the original great consumers' movement—as being very much a part of the protection of the consumer in the 'sixties and for many, many years to come.
I know there are those who think that because the co-operative movement came into being first in Victorian times as a reaction against the miseries and the exploitation of the Industrial Revolution, it has no part to play in modern times. As a co-operator, I think that is nonsense. In a world where the consumer presses forward all the time, co-operation has everything to contribute and does.
This is the point I want to put to my hon. Friend, therefore. I think it should be an article of faith of democratic government in the affluent consumer-conscious society to encourage co-operation—and I am not trying to put this in any narrow commercial sense—as a countercheck to producer domination. I would like to have my hon. Friend's opinion as to whether that is to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government under our new leaders; because, as I say, I should have thought that was common sense. It should be part of the policy of a democratic government in an affluent society.
Recognising the collective self-help of the consumer that we are getting these days, I argue that both in the matter of consumer associations and in the matter of co-operation, Governments cannot simply stand aloof. They must step in and do everything to encourage and

assist this very healthy development, as the trade unions were helped in their time.
In the first place, the trade unions were established by trade unionists who had to sacrifice and to fight against tremendous odds to establish their organisations. After a time, however, public opinion and then Governments gradually came to recognise that trade unionism was good for society and needed to be encouraged. Therefore, although the trade union movement at first climbed up on its own account, later the State stepped in and assisted its climb. The same attitude should be taken by any modern sensible Government towards the development of self-help by consumers.
The Gracious Speech spoke in exact terms, in at least a sentence or two, of the Government's intention to help the consumer. I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade whether what the Government said through the medium of the Queen's Speech at the opening of the present Parliament of their intention to help the consumer means doing more than has been done so far to compel truth in advertising?
My hon. Friends have raised this issue and I will not, therefore, stress it at too great length. Like my hon. Friends, however, I do not regard advertising as wrong or bad in itself. To advertise means to make known. It is significant that now that the planned, enclosed, Communist societies such as are to be found in much of Eastern Europe have been obliged to respond, or are planning to respond, to the need for more consumer goods, they discover that they cannot have an effective policy of supplying goods for consumer needs unless there is a certain amount of advertising. They find that advertising is essential to the proper working of consumer choice.
I accept that argument and, therefore, from that point of view, I have no bias against advertising. It fulfils a socially necessary purpose. But there is still much advertising which plays upon the hidden fears of people, particularly in health and medical matters, and in that sense advertising of that kind is both wrong and pernicious. I will not weary the House by examples, but many could be found.
When one talks about truth in advertising, I hear the argument that it is not easy to get truth in advertising because it is essentially a subjective business and objectivity is impossible. As the House perhaps knows, I am an engineer by profession and job, and it is my business from time to time to read technical journals, to study them and to look at the advertisements in them. Much advertising is done in technical journals, not only for engineering, but in many other technical branches. In the main, that advertising is always objective, truthful and helpful, the reason being that readers of such papers would soon test by experience the validity of the claims made. Therefore, it does not pay the advertisers of technical products, machinery and the like, to make false claims because they would quickly be found out.
Therefore, a tradition has grown up which has not detracted from advertising. Advertising goes on and it is very useful, but a tradition has grown up of truth and objectivity, which already applies in much technical advertising, and which, I think, should be extended to advertising generally. I should be very glad if my hon. Friend would also comment on that point. Could he tell us what the present Administration will do, and what they can do, if their present powers are sufficient—one must make that assumption—to compel more truth and more objectivity in advertising?
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) referred to hearing aids, and was quite right in saying that this issue has been raised recently in the House. I raised it myself. I had a case brought to my attention in Bristol of an elderly couple, both, I think, over 80, who saw an advertisement for a hearing aid, which was very good, would work, was very small and could be fitted. The advertisement said that a customer could have it for a week, a fortnight or a month for a free trial and that there would be nothing at all to pay until he was satisfied. I am sure that hon. Members can anticipate the sequel, that the slick salesman called and before the old couple knew where they were they found that they had signed the document, and out of their small resources they had to find £30 to £40. I

can only describe people who do that kind of thing as nothing short of shameful. In fact the aid did not work.

Mr. Rhodes: I hope that my hon. Friend has also taken into account the practice of some high-pressure salesmen, who, having done some market survey on who the deaf people are—they do this particularly with elderly cottagers—push a card through their door saying, "Sorry you were out when I called" without having called at all, in order to make the suggestion that the people's hearing is worse than it actually is.

Mr. Palmer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure he is right, but I want to be fair on this matter. I put down a Question on this subject which attracted some attention and, as a result, some of the vendors of these appliances—they have an association—came to me and urged on me a remedy for this kind of situation, one which I cannot mention, because of the circumstances in which we are debating this evening. I think that the remedy should be clear to hon. Members who think about it. These vendors said that they were anxious to stamp out these practices. I should be glad to hear from my hon. Friend if he has anything to say on this issue. What can the Government do within their existing powers? I am certainly not an advocate of restriction for restriction's sake, and I would agree with those who say that the surest safeguard is to acquire a good knowledge of materials and qualities, and not rush to buy something just because it is being cleverly sold, or has been cleverly advertised, in short, that the best protection for the consumer is always self-protection.
Nevertheless, I must remind my hon. Friend that the Government have promised public action, and the noble Lady Baroness Elliot, who is Chairman of the Consumer Council, recently reminded the Government of the need for action. Without being too critical, I thought that she was in too much of a hurry to suggest that the Government were not acting quickly, but that may be because of her past political background; I do not know. I agree that the Council is doing a useful job within its limited powers.
I was interested in a speech which Lady Elliot made to the Newcastle branch of the Electrical Association for Women. She referred to electrical appliances, of which I have some knowledge, and spoke about decisive action having been required for some years past to reduce the number of fatal accidents caused in the home by faulty manufacture or wiring of electrical appliances. I agree that the number of accidents which have occurred as a result of faulty workmanship is a scandal that has gone on for far too long.
The British Standards Institution, a valuable semi-public, semi-voluntary body, has for a considerable time laid down good standards for electrical appliances. No doubt the majority of reputable British manufacturers adhere to its standards, but the B.S.I. seems to be in no position to enforce its standards on the less reputable, back street manufacturers and importers of electrical appliances.
I wonder, therefore, whether the Ministry has this problem in mind and is considering a remedy within its existing powers. I must not mention legislation, but is there action which the Government could take under the powers already available? There is, for example, increased consumer education, which has already been mentioned. The Government must have some responsibility for this. There is the better testing of products and the fuller investigating of complaints. It might be thought that local authorities are the best medium for this task, but have they the trained staff to do it?
Machinery is needed for the examination of voluntary guarantees issued by manufacturers and others. This needs close supervision. Much is being done on this score by those responsible on their own account, but just as the State stepped in years ago to ensure that there was honesty in weights and measures, so the need for honesty in consumer standards generally is equally urgent.
Whether or not one is affluent is a matter of personal opinion. Looking at it from the point of view of society in the West—since in other parts of the world our views are not always shared—I suppose that if one is low down on the income ladder one might say that one is not affluent, but if one is doing well

and is high up on the ladder one might think in terms of affluence. It was ever thus.
But there is not the slightest doubt that by all the average standards of material comfort and possessions most British people are better off now than they were when I first started to take an interest in politics in my 'teens. As a Socialist, I welcome that fact, because I believe that it is only on the basis of great abundance of material goods and services that we can get an equal society. In fact, I believe that practical equality depends on a high degree of affluence.
But every advance in human affairs brings with it new problems for solution, in just the same way as, when we are climbing a mountain, we think we have reached the top only to find yet another crest ahead. Nevertheless, these are problems that democracy, and a democratic Government, if it is to justify itself, must succeed in solving, and amongst the urgent problems in the so-called affluent society—a society linked to some kind of market economy—one high priority concerns the consumer, his complaints and his protection. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have caught your eye in this debate.

5.41 a.m.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: This discussion on consumer protection has been most interesting, and it is a subject which one would hope that Parliament would find time to discuss each year in order to see what progress has been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) outlined the continual dangers facing the consumer. Although I am sure that hon. Members would welcome increased Anglo-American trade, we would all wish to prevent the rejects from the American economy coming into this country, and we should seek some means of preventing this form of economic exploitation that is being imported.
My hon. Friend and others have referred to the part the Co-operative movement has played in consumer protection. The movement, which started in this country, has now spread to all corners of the world, and in it we have an example of a consumers' organisation run in a democratic way on a non-profit basis,


returning the benefits of its enterprise to its members, while seeking to get those who join in it to participate democratically in its activities. As we get more consumer conscious in the years ahead, I think that the movement in its various forms will play a greater part, not just on the retail side but in housing schemes which protect the tenants, and in similar ways.
The question of consumer protection has come to the fore in recent years, and this debate has been preceded by a debate in another place initiated by the noble Lady, the Baroness Burton of Coventry. It is good that in both Houses there should be concern over this matter. In 1955, the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution was set up, and in July, 1959, the Molony Committee's Report led to the formation of the Consumer Council.
In their references to the Consumer Council, some of my hon. Friends have been more critical than others, but one major criticism of the Council as it has functioned so far is that it has not enough authority. It is the nucleus of an organisation which, given greater scope and authority, might do much better. It has not got the teeth necessary to bite on the problems confronting it. The Consumer Council has not the resources to make the information in its possession widely known. We as Members of Parliament receive copies of the leaflets which it issues, but these are not generally known to the housewife, and it is important that the information at the disposal of the Council should be known to every housewife.
It would be out of order to discuss future legislation, so I do no more than mention in passing that the Merchandise Marks Act is likely to be revised.
Some hon. Members argue that advertising plays an important part in the economy, but, from the point of view of the consumer, it must be remembered that, year by year, a growing amount is spent on advertising. The total in 1960 was £417 million, as compared with £91 million in 1938. The fall in the value of the £ does not account for all the difference by any means. I was told in answer to a Question to the President of the Board of Trade that something

approaching £500 million a year is now being spent on advertising.
A great deal of this advertising is wasteful. It is argued that advertising makes mass production and lower prices possible, but this is debatable. What are the rival advertisers in the "soap war" on television getting at by their slogans? Some of the products are manufactured by the same concern. What does "Washes whiter than white" mean? In the end, of course, it is the consumer who pays for this wasteful advertising, whether on the television screen or in the newspapers.
There is wasteful advertising of medicines. Twenty-five unbranded aspirin tablets can be bought for 4d., yet similar tablets, advertised at the cost of £500,000 a year, are priced at 1s. 8½d. for 27. I take those figures from a booklet on consumer protection. This is another example of the way the consumer pays more than he need for a product because of advertising.
Then there is the question of the advertising of different brands of petrol. On 18th August, 1962, the Financial Times had this to say of petrol advertising encouraging motorists to use super grade fuel:
In the case of the vast majority of models a premium petrol with octane rating of between 93–99 is perfectly satisfactory. Many motorists have been content to pay the extra because they were dazzled by octane ratings and the emphasis placed on it in oil companies' advertising.
The consumer is hoodwinked into believing something that is not true. The time is coming to consider some form of taxation on advertising. This is already done in Italy. We might well consider a tax on domestic advertising to encourage more advertising abroad in order to help exports and reduce internal consumption.
There are many new developments in the retail trade. We have had the Industrial Revolution and now a revolution is taking place in retailing through the development of supermarkets, self-service stores, big mail order houses, a vast increase in hire purchase, mobile shops and an army of door-to-door salesmen. All this is clear evidence of a new pattern in the retail trade. Under the old system, one went to the "co-op" or the shop on the corner. There was a relationship between consumer and shopkeeper. That brought about a system of fair play.


But it has broken down. There is now large-scale advertising and there are more dangers to the consumer.
Reference has been made to the dangers of door-to-door salesmen. The Consumer Council leaflet:
How to say 'No' to a doorstep salesman
put forward five points for the guidance of housewives in resisting those bringing pressure to bear on the doorstep:


"1. Watch your budget.
2. Make joint family decisions on important purchases.
3. Keep your mind on the thing you are buying and not on the story the salesmen tells you. Do you really want what he is offering?
4. Make quite sure of the total price to be paid on hire purchase, the delivery and the name of the firm and the servicing where that matters.
5. Before signing anything take time to think."

I know that the Board of Trade has issued instructions on this question of hire purchase and that progress has already been made. But it is important to consider some action to deal with the tremendous growth in the number of doorstep salesmen who are exploiting the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East referred to the education book salesmen who claim that they have books that it is essential for children to have if they are to get through the 11-plus or get on in their comprehensive school.
There are various ways and means of encouraging people to think that these books should be obtained for education. Some of these salesmen say they come from "the education department" and parents receive the impression that this means the local education authority. But it is merely the education department of a commercial concern selling its books for profit and exploiting the public in this way.
Perhaps hon. Members have had experience of switch selling. For example, people go from door to door selling vacuum cleaners, having advertised remodelled vacuum cleaners at a very low cost. After a demonstration in the house these are seen to be worthless, but alongside the cheap model which does not work is an expensive model which does work. The lady signs a form committing herself to considerable expense in buying the more expensive model.
There are magazine salesmen. They suggest that they are Commonwealth students and they go from door to door seeking subscriptions and telling people that if they make subscriptions they will help these students through some scholarship.
If we strengthen the Consumer Council, there are a number of functions which it does not have at the moment which it could have in future. It could consider testing products for quality, durability and fitness. The pioneering work has been done by the Consumer Association, which has established itself and has built up a considerable membership. It brings out the publication Which? every month and it tests products and gives an independent opinion on the quality of those products.
When the consumer goes into a retail shop to buy, for example, a refrigerator or a television set—some product which he buys perhaps only once in 10 years or even 30 years—it is important that he should have an independent opinion on quality and price from a responsible body. It is impossible for the consumer to test the product. I hope that this function which has been pioneered by the Consumer Association will be taken over by the Consumer Council on a national basis.
There is a need to examine consumers' complaints. There are county or city analysts who analyse foodstuffs. This could be done on a greater scale. In view of the abuses in advertising there is need to supervise advertising regulations and hire-purchase credit trading and similar agreements and to examine warranties and guarantees for goods and services. The consumer in this country is not afforded the protection which is needed. There has been a suggestion for setting up a Ministry of Consumer Welfare. We have a Minister of Labour and other Ministers. Why not a Minister of Consumer Welfare? I hope that we shall see some move to create such a Ministry so that the Minister can deal with these problems in the House.

5.59 a.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: There has been a suggestion that we should have a Minister for Consumer Protection. It is difficult to draw a line between that suggestion and the appointment of an Ombudsman, because there is little difference between the problems with which the Ombudsman would deal


and those with which a Minister for Consumer Protection would deal.

Mr. Rhodes: As I understand it, the Ombudsman is meant primarily to act as a watchdog over complaints against administrative parties, rather than against private institutions. He has a different function.

Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend may be perfectly right in that sense, but I do not think he can be so clear about drawing this distinction. We all have an interest as consumers of services and goods, and if we are concerned with consumer protection we must also be concerned with protecting ourselves against abuses within Government service, and from that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but to establish an Ombudsman would require legislation, and that is outwith this debate.

Mr. Atkinson: I am sorry for wandering there, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. To me it has been a fascinating experience to listen to, and take part in, this debate. I have been listening to it for some nine hours, and I have enjoyed it as a stimulating experience, something quite new in my life. But I have worked nights for a good long period, so it is no strange experience for me to be up at this time of the morning. This debate has been fascinating, because of the variation of talents in the House, and all that I have listened to this morning has been of equal interest.
I was very interested in the eloquence of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates), and I am sorry that I cannot take up the points which he raised. It would only confuse hon. Members if I attempted to develop some of the points that he made. We were talking at one time about consumer protection in the Jordan. It was almost a kind of theory and practice of "El Cid". I do not detract from the sincerity of the hon. Member's remarks, but I thought it was something of an abuse of the debate to steal a march, in the sense of introducing a subject which was somewhat removed from consumer protection in this

country, with which we are concerned. Certainly, I should like to have facts on consumer protection in the Middle East. I recognise that the hon. Member opposite had every right to raise this subject, but he cannot expect that we will follow accurately some of the points which he raised. However, I am sure that we should like to hear from him at some other time, because he made some interesting points which were very germane to the present international situation.
I should like to come back to some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). This experience this morning has been interesting, because if this is any indication of what our morning sittings are to be like, I am all in favour of them. It is a good thing if this is the new style, the new type, of "instant Parliament" with morning sittings. In a sense, it is a stimulating experience, particularly from the point of view of London Members, because we have always complained most bitterly that we have never been able to catch the eye of the Press, as they are either just waking up or going to bed, so far as the London Members are concerned. The fact that we can speak at this hour, and catch the Evening Standard and the Evening News—if they are listening—will be a good thing so far as our constituents are concerned.
Therefore, this is a new experience in Parliamentary life. It is an extension of democracy and Parliament is at its best. We are, in fact, reaching out to a new audience from this hour. I welcome it from that point of view. It is something which is well worth while, and something we ought to recognise as being a step forward in Parliamentary procedure, and something we ought to encourage.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Member is deluding himself if he thinks the sort of exhibition which he and his hon. Friends are putting up today deliberately to kill an important Bill which comes into today's business will find any favour at all outside this House.

Mr. Atkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for making this comment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Friend?"]—well, he may


be a friend. I can assure the hon. Member opposite that he has no idea yet what I am going to say, and I am sure that what I have got to say will be of interest to the Press, particularly the London Press.

Mr. Rhodes: Will my hon. Friend agree with me—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Will the hon. Member speak up and speak to the Chair, please? I cannot hear him.

Mr. Rhodes: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I wonder if my hon. Friend will agree with me that the intervention we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is most extraordinary, in that the hon. Member should regard a debate on consumer protection as being an exhibition?

Mr. Atkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder and the extent to which this commentary can go. I consider that this is a constructive and very useful debate, and I am proud to be taking part in it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has now made a quite long introduction to his speech. I hope that he will now come to the topic he wants to raise.

Mr. Atkinson: Certainly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am coming back to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East when he introduced this controversial note, if I may call it so, as to consumer resistance in certain sections of our trading community. He was talking at one time about the attraction of stamp trade and people being induced to purchase even though they might not be altogether satisfied as to the quality of the goods they were purchasing; they were induced to do so by the stamp. Then he referred to the working class and he associated a certain gullibility with the working class and the purchase of goods under these conditions. I would say to him that some time ago the working class learned that "philately will get you nowhere"—if I may title that kind of trading that way—and that kind of trading is out. I am glad to say that, though this was a trading trend some time ago, we are now seeing a diminution of it.

Mr. Rhodes: There is a little bit of confusion here, because I did not per-

sonally refer to stamp trading. I think it was another hon. Member who did. It so happens that my hobby is philately, though that is completely irrelevant.

Mr. Atkinson: I am sorry if I confused the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley.
I wanted to link this with the fact that consumer protection in this country is not anything like adequate. Although they have made comments from time to time the various consumer associations are in no position to protect people from excessive pressure we have seen in the gift approach—

Mr. Robert Cooke: If the hon. Member does not recall the reason why trading stamps are on the way out, as he said, let me remind him that it is because of a Measure which was introduced into this House by a Member on my side, a Tory Member, in the last Parliament, a Measure rather like the excellent Bill which is being introduced at 11.0 o'clock today, if hon. Members opposite do not prevent the introduction of that valuable example of private Members' legislation.

Mr. Atkinson: I well remember that phase of legislation. But one cannot legislate against a motorist, for instance, driving into a garage and asking for the petrol of his choice. Yet these days motorists are not so ready to get their petrol at a garage which advertises stamps, gift tokens and so on. There is coming to be a certain reluctance to accept these means of encouraging trade.
Some good work has been done by the Consumer Association. It is a nonprofit-making organisation, closely associated with many members of the Government. Good though it may be, unfortunately it cannot influence the design of commodities. It can to some extent pinpoint weaknesses in the design of consumer goods but it cannot influence design by making creative suggestions. This weakness can be overcome only by the establishment of standards, and this must involve protection by the Government. The consumer protection movement at the moment cannot direct or stimulate design; it cannot be creative in this sense. Therefore, the job must be undertaken by the Government. I


hope that at some time we can expect to get direct influence into the design of products and guarantees to consumers because of standards set by the Government.
I will illustrate this in terms of motor cars. Ministers of Transport have spoken about this. It is a question of Government standards and how far the Government can go. Consumer protection involves a guarantee not only of the quality of the vehicle but of its roadworthiness in relation to other vehicles. These are the broader aspects of consumer protection. When one buys a motor car one should be assured that one buys a vehicle which conforms to standards which make it a competent vehicle in relation to others. Bumpers should all be of a certain thickness of metal, of a certain design and a certain height from the ground. That would not detract from competition between manufacturers, but would ensure that the user had a vehicle equipped with bumpers to deal with emergency or difficulty which might be experienced by him. It is good consumer protection to think in terms of the design of the vehicle in relation to its use. We should then not have parking difficulties, breakages, damaged headlights, interlocking of cars and so on. This whole field ought to be explored.

Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am a little concerned because there do not seem to be—

Mr. Ivor Richard: Further to the point of order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell).

Mr. Fell: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was drawing your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members in the Chamber.

Mr. Richard: Further to that point of order. Can you help me Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Is it in order for a Member of the Opposition to call a Count when there are only three Members of the Opposition present in the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I answer the second point of order first? All hon. Members have exactly the same

rights and it is in order for any hon. Member to seek to call the attention of the Chair to the number of Members present. It is for the Chair to decide on how many occasions or how soon after a Count he accedes to an hon. Member's request to call another count.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

6.17 a.m.

Mr. Atkinson: I was talking about bumpers. It may be that motorists are concerned only with the appearance of a car and may not demand much in the way of quality, but as consumers they are entitled to certain standards which may not be too obvious. We should be concerned not only with the design of the bumpers, but with the quality of the chromium plate, and the mere thickness of chromium plate does not suggest its quality. The motorist should have some guarantee about what is under the brilliant chromium finish, too.
There are other parts of the car whose standards should be ensured. For instance, there are the lights, the trafficators, or winking lights, or indicators, or whatever the name may be. Successive Ministers of Transport have failed to do anything about the luminosity, or intensity, of these indicators. There are wide variations in the quality of these and other fittings.
I think that as an essential part of consumer protection we ought to establish some standards for thickness of lens, type of lens, brilliance of the lights, luminosity of the lights, their size, their position, and so on. This would help to eliminate the tremendous expense in which motorists are involved as a result of broken lights, and so on, due to bad parking. Thanks to the pseudo-Americanism that is creeping in here, motorists parking their cars tend to behave like drivers in control of shunting engines. They use their cars to push other cars out of the way, and in so doing cause considerable damage—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This is very interesting, but is the hon. Member suggesting that the Government can do something about all this, with or without legislation? If the Government can do


something about it by means of legislation, the hon. Member is out of order in discussing it, and if the Government cannot do anything about it, he is also out of order.

Mr. Atkinson: I think that the Government should indicate their desires to the manufacturers, and in so doing draw the attention of the manufacturers to the needs of the consumer. If we are talking about protecting the consumer, we should point out the sort of things about which the consumer is thinking, but which he cannot bring to the notice of the manufacturers without the aid of the Government.
The motorist should be given some guarantee of the kind of vehicle that he is about to purchase. We should make certain that it measures up to the needs of modern conditions. I am certain that the average motorist, when he goes to a showroom, does not carefully and closely scrutinise the whole vehicle that he is proposing to buy to make sure that it has such things as windscreen washers which work efficiently, yet one's experience of driving along a motorway shows that these are essential. Therefore, in order to protect the intending consumer, we ought to lay down standards and say that every vehicle will be equipped with things of this kind.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We could lay down those standards only by legislation. The hon. Member cannot talk about proposed legislation in this debate.

Mr. Atkinson: I am sorry to have offended again, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but perhaps I can go on to draw the attention of the House to a remarkable situation which exists, particularly in London. London is not more dishonest than any other part of the country—in fact just the opposite—but we know something of the problem. I am referring to car stealing. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that every year between 50,000 and 65,000 cars are stolen from our streets, and that no fewer than 3,000 of those vehicles never find their way back to their owners. The police have no knowledge of the whereabouts of those vehicles. This is a tremendous problem, and one which we ought to consider very carefully. It is something which the consumer bears in mind when he goes to buy his car.
In quoting those figures of stolen cars, I am not referring to the practice of the Metropolitan Police of driving away vehicles without the owner's consent from time to time. This practice is on the increase in London, but I have not included cars removed in this way in the figures of stolen cars. The point is that thieves take these stolen cars to quiet back streets and ransack them in their own time. They remove all the fittings, such as the radio, the spot lamp, and so on, without being observed by the public. This seems to be the real reason for driving away vehicles in this fashion.
There ought to be some protection against theft. The manufacturer should follow a code of behaviour in the design of locks. Some modern motor cars are fitted with locks which can be demolished completely by a blow in the right place. In some cases the manufacturers have even aided the intending thief by engraving on the locks the number of the requisite key, so that the theif does not have to try a whole bundle of keys to find the right one. The motorist who buys a car should have some assurance that that sort of thing cannot happen. Anti-thief devices should be fitted which ensure that the motorist is guaranteed protection against thefts of this kind. In the absence of any standards suggested by the Government, designers do not pay much attention to the question of security.

Mr. T. Urwin: Would my hon. Friend care to say something about the theft of petrol from petrol tanks in cars, which is another very important aspect of the matter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Before the hon. Member continues, I want to emphasise once more that it is not merely sufficient to complain about the state of the world in general; the hon. Member must link up his remarks with administrative action which the Government can take or have failed to take.

Mr. Atkinson: I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This matter is of tremendous concern to motorists. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for drawing my attention to the question of caps for petrol tanks. There again, there is a complete absence of standards, or a tremendous variation among manufacturers.
Motoring matters are not generally considered as part of this problem; that is why I have spent some time in drawing them to the attention of the House. In West Germany standards are built into all cars by the manufacturers, and the purchasers are adequately protected. They also know that their vehicles comply with the required standards. When they use them on the autobahns they know that their vehicles are guaranteed to stand up to any difficulties that they may encounter when driving long distances at fast speeds.
The bumpers and the lights on the car do not in fact dazzle other drivers, nor does one meet the multiplicity of designs, shapes, sizes and luminosities that are found in this country. There is a standard, a pattern, accepted by manufacturers which has been of tremendous help and assistance to all motorists there. This is something which I should like to see introduced into Britain as a means of making motoring safer and easier, and giving the motorist much more value for his money—in fact giving the motorist consumer protection.

6.31 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I hope that my hon. Friends will allow me at this stage to intervene in the debate—I repeat intervene—while I can remember the many points raised. I am sure that those of my hon. Friends who have not spoken will accept my assurance that any additional issues they may wish to raise in subsequent speeches will be taken fully into account.
I am glad that this very important subject has been raised and that we have devoted this time to it, because we do not have many opportunities to discuss consumer problems. It is a coincidence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Ioan L. Evans) mentioned, that we have had similar debates in both Houses this week. It would be rather unfortunate if these important problems, affecting so many people in this country, should be discussed only in the other place and not here.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has made many constructive propositions about car design and what

we ought to do about safety standards and so on. I agree with very much of what he has said, but this is a matter for the Ministry of Transport and my hon. Friend, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who heard my hon. Friend's interesting and constructive speech, has assured me that what he said will be taken fully into consideration by his Ministry.
There is one criticism I should like to make of some of the contributions that have been made to this debate. I have been rather surprised that some of my hon. Friends have given credit to the Molony Committee and other bodies for the initiatives and ideas for which this party of ours is responsible. We ought to get the record straight now and again. It was this party that proposed the setting up of a Consumer Council years before the Molony Committee was appointed. I do not want to go into a great deal of detail, but the general run of recommendations of the Molony Committee was advocated by us years before the Committee was set up.
The need for more activity in this field of consumer protection has been stressed by many of my hon. Friends, and particularly by the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) and Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), both of whom pointed out that new products are now on the market, more complicated products than ever before, and that in addition we have a great expansion of the packaging of goods so that shoppers cannot accurately assess the quality, composition and performance of the goods they buy until they have opened the package.
Questions have been asked about how it is possible to guarantee that the customer gets value for money. Of course, the answer is that we must have informative labelling on the packets and honest advertising of the products.
So far as informative labelling goes, the Consumer Council, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends know, is doing the preparatory work for the introduction of informative labelling schemes in association with the British Standards Institution. I am sure all hon. Members will hope that their efforts in this direction will be successful.
As for the introduction, if one can put it like that, of measures to ensure that all


advertising is honest, straightforward and in no way misleading, this line of argument places me in something of a difficulty, because the most important part of the job involves legislation, and I cannot speak about that. But so far as concerns the voluntary application of standards by the advertisers, by the owners of media that put out advertisements—newspapers, television, posters and so on—standards are being voluntarily argued out and voluntarily applied. But a great deal more needs to be done by the advertising interests themselves—I have made this point several times in debates in this House and in speeches elsewhere—and we hope that, as a result of constant criticism and pressure, this will be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) when he opened this part of our discussions tonight, mentioned many of the objectionable practices of doorstep salesmen—practices which all of us must condemn. He mentioned, for instance, doorstep salesmen selling books and using sales techniques which mislead the householder; techniques where the seller comes along and says that he is engaged in a market research operation or is representing an education authority. These, again, are matters which will be dealt with by legislation, but, in the meantime, a great deal might be done by public criticism of the methods, on the one hand, and by helping housewives to understand what their rights and responsibilities are, on the other.
As a result of public criticism, as I think my hon. Friend knows, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for instance, has assured us that it has dropped the sales techniques that were criticised and no longer allows its staff to use the market research approach or go in for repeated telephone calls. Of course, we welcome this assurance from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and we hope that other booksellers will follow suit.
As I say, I cannot go into detail, but some of the practices that are complained of are practices that will be made illegal when we have dealt with the whole question of misrepresentation and misdescription of goods and services in new legislation.
I am also aware not only of the practices that have been complained of but of the advice that has been given by

many citizens' advice bureaux, and, where local authorities are concerned with this, I am aware of the advice that has been given to the victims in these cases. Those that I have in mind are at the moment subject to legal proceedings which, again, rather puts a handicap on the possibilities of my developing the kind of advice that has been given. But, although I cannot discuss the advice in detail in the cases I have in mind because legal proceedings are being taken, a great deal can be done by citizens' advice bureaux and local authorities throughout the country to tell people who get into difficulties just precisely what their action should be and what the consequences would be of allowing legal action to be taken, with legal aid provided. If cases of misrepresentation of this kind were fought, even under existing law, and if publicity were given to them, I feel sure that many of these disreputable practices would be dropped, because it certainly would not be in the interests of the firms concerned to continue with them.
Furthermore, on the question of doorstep salesmen, the House should know that the Consumer Council has said that it will undertake, as, I think, it is doing, a study into what can be done to get rid of disreputable practices. Whether this involves legislation or whether action can be taken under existing legislation depends upon the outcome of the inquiries that the Consumer Council will be making.
There are difficulties here, as far as this debate is concerned, because any system of licensing and registration which may be the outcome of the inquiries will involve legislation. At any rate, the Consumer Council has made a start by publishing its booklet, "How to say 'No' to a doorstep salesman", and we hope that this will have the widest possible publicity through citizens' advice bureaux, and so on. Attention should be drawn to the excellent series of articles which have appeared this week in Sun by Miss Elizabeth Gundrey, whose articles on doorstep salesmen will, I understand, be published in booklet form. This again is something on which wide distribution would help enormously.
I am aware of the Concert Hall Record Club, to which my hon. Friend


referred, and the Vita Safe Plan. We are in touch with the Consumer Council about this matter but here, too, I am in difficulty, because there is a possibility of a libel action in this connection and I do not want to get involved in discussion about that at this stage.
In referring to the Universal Health Studios, I am sorry that I am anticipating something that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) may say. I hope that he will say it, because the more publicity that we can give to the kind of criticism which he has been developing, the better it will be for everybody since, as I said in the adjournment debate for which my hon. Friend was responsible, we cannot, in present circumstances, take the action that we should like to take in matters of this kind. Again, legislation is needed.
We understand, however, that the new chairman and managing director of the firm has said that he will reorganise the company and its policy. We have had a great many statements about the company and its policies and we should like to see results before we make any comment about the proposition. But I understand that the proposals that have been put forward, if they are carried out by the new managing director, will mean that the high-pressure sales methods will be discontinued and that the sales procedure manual will be dropped—this was one of the main causes of our complaints against the company—and, second, that the form of contract will be revised. Of course, we have also had the promise that those members who want to renounce their contracts for medical reasons will be able to do so.

Mr. Dodds: Will I be allowed to say, as I have waited seven hours and more, that I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but there is no likelihood of that, and the trail of misery has been increased?

Mr. Darling: I am not saying categorically that these promises will be carried out. As I say, we want to see the results, but I hope that the promises will be carried out in this respect by the new people who are apparently running the company.

Mr. Harold Lever: Has my hon. Friend any powers to take action at present under the Companies Act or any other such legislation?

Mr. Darling: No. The point about the Companies Act, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford will raise—perhaps I can mention it now very briefly, because I do not want to stop him giving publicity to the point of view which he wants to raise—is that the reference in Section 165 of the Companies Act to members, I am advised, is a reference to shareholders. I am glad to have the assurance from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). Of course, the members of the Universal Health Studios are not shareholders. They are customers who have signed contracts to pay a certain sum of money for a period of time. Therefore, unless the shareholders complain, we cannot bring Section 165 into operation. The shareholders are not complaining, for quite obvious reasons.
Until we have the new legislation dealing with misrepresentation, it will be impossible to catch these people for misrepresentation and the high-pressure salesmanship which has caused people to sign contracts without knowing quite what the contracts mean.

Mr. Rhodes: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is an extraordinary fact that this weakness exists in British law, after so many years of consumer exploitation particularly in the 1950's? Is this not a condemnation of the inaction and apathy of the previous Government?

Mr. Darling: Of course it is a criticism of the previous Government. It took five years of prodding on our part to get them to set up the Molony Committee or to take some action on investigation of complaints, and it has taken them all this time to take action on the recommendations of the Molony Committee itself. In fact, all that we have had following the Molony Report is the seting up of the Consumer Council, with terms of reference which we think are too weak, and the introduction of the new Hire Purchase Act, which again did not go as far as many of us wanted it to go.
The next point with which I want to deal was raised, I think, by my hon.


Friend the Member for Blackley. He said—and this is, to some extent, perfectly true—that consumer protection administration is scattered over several Ministries, and ought now to be brought together. This is a constitutional exercise, and I do not know what kind of priority my hon. Friend would give to it in present circumstances, but there are things which can be done, even before this proposition is given consideration. We have, in effect, a division in the Board of Trade dealing with certain questions of consumer protection, and there is growing up very close co-ordination with similar divisions in other Ministries. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for instance, which has taken over many of the functions of the old Ministry of Food and is responsible for such legislation as the Food and Drugs Act and for food standards, is in the closest co-operation with the Board of Trade. This is true also of the administration of the Consumer Protection Act by the Home Office.
I was asked why the Home Office is still responsible for the Consumer Protection Act. The answer is that we are here dealing with what I might call criminal sanctions because safety standards are involved as well as administration and enforcement. That is in the hands of the police and the fire service. If this were handed over to the Board of Trade, in present circumstances the Board of Trade would have to go to the Home Office, the police and the fire services for enforcement. At any rate, as the system works now there is close co-operation between the Home Office and the Board of Trade on the application of the Consumer Protection Act and the enforcement of the standards set up by regulations under that Act.
I was also asked why the Merchandise Marks Acts were not more strictly enforced. Enforcement is not the real weakness, but the Acts themselves. They are very much out of date and they do not deal with modern problems in the way in which we want modern shopping and consumer problems tackled.
The reason why action can be taken by individuals is that they are common informers in this context and under the relevant Statutes they can make complaints. For example, one of the bodies which is most active in this sphere is

the Retail Trading Standards Association, which acts as common informer in cases where the Association finds that the Merchandise Marks Acts have not been complied with in regard to the description of goods. Then it takes the necessary legal action. This question of enforcement also needs to be put right and, to go out of order very briefly, in the new legislation the enforcing bodies will be the local authorities, so the matter will be put right.
Several of my hon. Friends raised the question of consumer education and they discussed this in association with the work of the Consumer Council. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done here and the Council is, I agree, the right body to do it. Discussions are going on between the Council and the Department, although I stress that the Council is a completely independent body. It does not take instructions from the Board of Trade. In fact, the system works the other way round. The Council suggests to the Department what might be done about legislation and so on. We have a close association with the Council and discussions are going on to see how best the consumer education work of the Council can be developed. Assistance is given to consumers by voluntary and independent bodies such as consumer associations, local consumer groups and the Co-operative movement's educational activities.
I said that I would deal with the question of local authority administration. The experiment which is taking place in Sheffield is well worth examination, and I am proud that that experimental work is going on in the city which I have the honour partly to represent. The Sheffield City Council has appointed in its Weights and Measures Department a consumer protection officer. Without going into detail on the work he does, he is, I gather, now handling about 70 complaints from local citizens each month. His score of successes is remarkably high, no doubt because he telephones from the town hall to try to get things put right when customers bring their grievances to him. It is on that side of his activities—the fact that he can get manufacturers and traders to put right things that have gone wrong, replace goods that have fallen to pieces, allow the customer to have a credit note or get the money back for goods


purchased—that this development, this experimental work, should be looked at.
As I have said, much of the legislation now in force—and, indeed, contemplated—will fall on weights and measures departments of local authorities, and some of my hon. Friends have rightly asked whether we shall have enough inspectors—and inspectors with the right training and qualifications—to do the work that will be increasingly put upon them. I can tell my hon. Friends that improvements in recruiting and training inspectors are being pursued by many local authorities at present. This is a step in the right direction, but I think that it will be incumbent upon us to consider afresh the status and training, and the responsibilities that will fall upon all these weights and measures inspectors in the future.
As I have indicated, I cannot go into detail about future legislation, but I am sure that the services of these people in future will have to lead to a change in their name. Whether they should be called consumer protection officers, I do not know, but their field of activities will certainly be very much wider than it now is.
My hon. Friends have also referred to so-called guarantees given by many manufacturers with their products. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley who drew attention to the limited value of a large number of manufacturers' guarantees which, in return for what are considered the benefits of the warrantee, have exclusion clauses written in that either deprive the customer of his civil rights of redress in relation to the goods in question or impose charges for labour and transport involved in having the goods repaired. The Consumer Council has drafted what it considers to be the ideal form of guarantee. It contains positive assurances to shoppers, and we hope that as a result of persuasion at this stage—and it can only be done by persuasion at this stage—we can get more and more manufacturers to adopt this form of guarantee.
The background to the problem is that the Molony Committee in its final Report on consumer protection dealt at some length with the whole question of guarantees, warranties, contracting out of liability, and so on, and came to the

conclusion that freedom to make a contract in whatever terms the parties pleased is a principle of English law, and that this principle is embodied in the sale of goods legislation—another piece of legislation that we must look at later on.
But the Molony Committee pointed out that to sign away in a document the civil rights that a person ought to have does not deprive the customer of a legal basis for complaint. This is a long and complicated argument, but the point is that, unless we can introduce legislation to amend the Sales of Goods Act, the best way we can deal with the matter is by persuasion, by publicity, by criticism of existing guarantees in order to get as many manufacturers as possible—all manufacturers, in fact, if it can be done—to accept the form of guarantee proposed by the Consumer Council.
The question was also raised about standard printed contracts. Here again, a difficult legal problem is involved. But the form of contract which the Consumer Council has been considering and now has in mind would give a great deal of support and satisfaction to the wishes expressed by my hon. Friends if we could get all the people concerned, particularly those engaged in services, to accept it. Examples of the type of contract which is criticised can be found on railway tickets, cloakroom and parking tickets, laundry conditions of contract and conditions governing the carriage of goods. Many such contracts contain clauses which eliminate or reduce what would otherwise be the liability of the party who drafts the conditions, and this is usually liability for negligence.
The Molony Committee, when it discussed this problem, concluded that it was one facet of a much wider problem involving the whole question of liability in tort, and it did not think it right to make any recommendations concerning just one aspect of it. Therefore, the question of a standard form of contract also has to wait for other legislation. But, in the meantime, we shall pay careful attention to any recommendations which the Consumer Council may make to us for voluntary contracts to replace those now being complained of.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central raised the question of standards. I shall not discuss


his complaint about the packaging of shirts. This is something about which the consumer ought to be allowed to express a view, and, of course, if there were a wide choice in all classes of goods which people want to buy, unboxed shirts, I take it, would be available. How to persuade manufacturers to accept my hon. Friend's point of view as against his view of what consumers want I do not know. Obviously, this is a matter which must be left to voluntary choice in some way or other.

Mr. Palmer: Shirt manufacturers could take a hint, could not they?

Mr. Darling: This is what I meant by persuasion. If they study this debate, they will probably get a lot of hints about how they should conduct their affairs.
My hon. Friend raised one or two important questions about standards, and he mentioned, in particular, electrical equipment. As he knows, the British Standards Institution is being pressed to produce standards in this connection which conform to international specifications. Clearly, this is a case in which one needs international standards enforced in all the countries which are trading with one another in electrical goods, particularly domestic electrical appliances.
When we have the standards—some are coming along—from the B.S.I., there will be the question of enforcement. At the moment, there can be enforcement only through the Consumer Protection Act on the basis of safety regulations. I should imagine that in most cases the safety regulation procedure will apply to electrical equipment when the standards are laid down because of the possible risk of accident. But this is a matter which is worth discussing further. To what extent standards are needed for safety purposes I would not like to say at this stage. I can only give my own guess, but I think that it would be impossible under present legislation to impose standards except on grounds of safety.

Mr. Fell: Would one really want to impose standards except for safety? Otherwise, might one not narrow the field of the manufacturer quite unnecessarily?

Mr. Darling: Yes. I think this is one of the points to be considered. I was going on to say that, on one side, we can enforce standards in questions of safety and, on the other side, we have to try to get some kind of standardised labelling on a voluntary basis. This must be pressed ahead. As I have said, the Consumer Council is already engaged on it.

Mr. Palmer: The point is that sound engineering standards would also be sound safety standards. They are inseparable.

Mr. Darling: Yes, but it is a question of information. I would agree with the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) that one requirement is a safety standard and this obviously must be enforced by law. But where it is a question of getting standardised standards—for information purposes to give an idea of the performance of the goods—we want to make sure that the customer, instead of being presented with a whole lot of different descriptions of the same kind of thing, gets a standard description for the same kind of thing from all kinds of manufacturers. This job has to be worked out by the Consumer Council and the B.S.I. I do not think that it will be at all difficult, in dealing with electrical appliances—which may well come first in this activity of the Consumer Council and the B.S.I.—to get the manufacturers to agree to standardised, informative labelling.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: We always seem to assume that there are only two possible things to do—first, to enforce for limited purposes like safety and, secondly, to secure voluntary agreement. Surely there are other moves open to the Government. Some other countries have done better in reducing unnecessary duplications of business without enforcement but merely by ensuring that public bodies that are purchasers of these classes of goods buy only to the standard specifications. If we did that with builders' goods for local authority building, for instance, and for electrical fittings and thousands of other things, this would be more powerful than enforcement and no more offensive than voluntary action.

Mr. Darling: I agree and, of course, there is a further thing which can be done but which I cannot mention now. I


will write to my hon. Friend about it and tell him what is to be in future legislation with regard to informative labelling where the voluntary system breaks down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central also raised the question of the testing of products and suggested that this might be done by the Government or some kind of Government agency. We have to distinguish here between the testing of products and the purposes of testing.
First, where testing is done to guide the choice of the consumer, in the way the job is done by Which?, I think this must be left to voluntary bodies because all kinds of subjective judgments will come into consideration. But clearly, if action is to be taken against manufacturers because they appear to have been misleading customers by misdescriptions of goods and the mislabelling of goods and services, obviously the testing has to be done to find out whether the claims made by the manufacturers are honest or misleading. There of course—again it is matter for future legislation—this kind of testing would have to be done in some way by the Government. That point is covered.
I will come to a conclusion shortly to give others of my hon. Friends the chance to speak. I am sorry that I had to intervene now but there was good reason. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central raised the question of the examination and investigation of consumer complaints. This has been excluded, as he knows, from the terms of references of the Consumer Council and we have to accept that for the time being. But at the moment, under the set-up we have inherited, there is a possibility of doing a very good job of work here. If we can make use of the citizens' advice bureaux and the local authorities to be the local eyes and ears of the Consumer Council, it will be possible to build up a body of information about consumers' complaints. If this can be channelled through the Consumer Council and appropriate action recommended, where action is needed, on the basis of the information which goes to the Consumer Council in this way, we can do a better job in dealing with consumers' complaints than has been possible in the past.
I assure my hon. Friend that we have this matter, too, under consideration, and we hope that we can build up a service through the C.A.Bs. and the local authorities—which are engaging increasingly in this work—so that we know what people are complaining about. We shall then have a clear idea of the action which must be taken either by the Government or by persuading manufacturers and traders to do a better job so that consumers' complaints do not arise. We have this matter under consideration.
On that note I will close, except to tell my hon. Friends whose speeches I interrupted that the points which they make will be taken into consideration.

7.12 a.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I want to raise, briefly, only two points, but they have been troubling me for some time. It has been said that the Devil can quote the Scriptures for his own purpose. It is true that an unscrupulous crooked salesman can use the law for his own evil ends, and I should like to draw attention to the use which certain people are making of a normal practice known as the default summons.
The Universal Health Studios have been using this device. It is a pernicious activity. When you query them and ask, "How many complaints have you had?", they say, "We have had about 300 complaints". When you ask, "Are all your members happy?", they say, "Yes, they are all happy." When you say, "Have you ever had occasion to take action against them?", they say, "We have taken legal action against 3,000 of them". I discovered that in Liverpool alone that organisation issued over 200 default summonses in July. They have issued hundreds of default summonses by the same method in Manchester County Court.
It is a simple matter to fill in part of the form which I have here. That is enough to set in motion a frightening process. This is happening to innocent people who do not normally come into contact with the law, and they find this sort of action very intimidating. If they make up their minds to fight to the bitter end, they find that these people are so unscrupulous that in the end a default summons is issued.
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the feelings of innocent people when they receive three documents such as these? They are extremely confusing and quite baffling and very worrying to the recipient. In consequence, it is almost a form of legal blackmail being used to force money out of people. I have found from investigations that not only the Universal Health Studios are using this method. The device is used by all the unscrupulous sharks using these selling practices in this country. It would be in the interests of all consumers if greater publicity were given to this sort of activity.
When a default summons is issued, normally, from my short experience in the House, it is the M.P. who seems to be the constituent's best friend. But by the time the constituent gets over his first shock and writes to tell you that he has had it, and you have had time to consider the matter and reply, it is impossible for the person to get the answer back in eight days. But if he does not get the answer back in eight days, a judgment summons may be issued against him. It would seem to me that my hon. Friend would be well advised to take a second look at this procedure, which provides a straightforward open door to the unscrupulous.
The second point that I want to raise is something which has taxed my temper for some time. Before coming to this place I taught in a school, and it seems to me that the one person who never has had a fair deal in this matter is the parent of children going to local authority and other schools, who is compelled to clothe his children in school uniforms. I make the point that I believe in school uniforms, but I say that because I believe that a school uniform ought to be the cheapest method of clothing a child. But, unfortunately, as soon as a school uniform is adopted, the parent then becomes the target of some sharp trading practices. I can quote a simple example.
A headmaster arrived at a school in North Wales and decided to redesign the school uniform, and he chose it in three colours. This in itself was very expensive, as they were specially selected colours. Of course, we do not always get a lot of sun in North Wales, and in the dreary North Wales winter, during which this school uniform was intro-

duced, the colours had faded within two months. When the parents of the growing children lengthened the sleeves, the children went to school looking like Joseph in his coat of many colours.
It seems to me that, if a local authority or a school insists upon parents clothing their children in a standard school uniform, they have usurped from the parents their freedom as consumers. Consequently, I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that, when school uniforms are insisted upon, his Department ought to make it crystal clear that the Retail Trading Standards Association has already laid down quite a good standard for blazer cloth and blazer material, which is hard-wearing, durable and reasonably cheap. It seems to me that, wherever the consumer is denied some of his rights, the person who usurps those rights ought to see that value for money can be obtained.
I shall not detain the House any longer. Those are the two points that I have waited for 7½ hours to make, and I urge hon. Members to consider them most carefully.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

7.20 a.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: During the course of my contribution to this debate I wish to draw the attention of the House to protection of consumers of services, not only of consumers of goods, but before doing so may I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the need for some protection of consumers of services in the House? The heating service since four o'clock has been unfortunately low, and many of us are feeling cold. I hope that my comment may lead to some consumer protection for hon. Members who have been here all night.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): I will make inquiries and see what can be done.

Mr. Pavitt: I will not comment on all the interesting things which have been said during the debate on this subject, but will take up one from the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). It must


be the envy of all of us to be able to rise and make two points so distinctly, clearly and effectively. Most of us, if we could make points in that way in our speeches, would be more than satisfied.
I am grateful that only my hon. Friend the Minister of State intervened from the Front Bench because I think that there is much more some of us would still like to say in this debate. He made clear what some of us have often thought, that it is only on an occasion like this that usually we can debate consumer protection, a subject which has to be squeezed in between various other important things the House has to debate and decide.
The machinery of protection which exists at present needs strengthening, in addition to the need to create new machinery as time goes on. My hon. Friend the Minister talked about the Consumer Council. This needs strengthening. It needs more teeth, it needs a great deal more financial support than it gets at present. I pay tribute to the work of the citizens' advice bureaux and to the valuable work which that body of voluntary workers does, but unless they have increased grants consumers' protection will be too much for them; they need more money if they are to do their job.
My hon. Friend the Minister talked of the powers of the local authority inspectors and said that he was proposing to change their name. I should like to inform him that a change of name without a change of pay will not do anything to change the situation. We need to increase their pay and also to increase the status of the most necessary job they do for the community.
The debate has hinged on the housewives to a great extent. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) was very courageous and chivalrous in going to the protection of the ladies who buy "the little black dress". Most of us realise that this is a part of consumer protection which we can do little about. When it comes to questions of taste and choice, nobody can tell a lady what is the best that she can get for her money. Those hon. Gentlemen who look into ladies' millinery shops and see weird and wonderful goods marked at two guineas and 10 guineas can only wonder. It makes us realise that there

is little one can do to protect the fair sex in matters of this kind.
In my constituency is a famous biscuit factory, belonging to McVitie and Price. There the packets of 8 oz. are always 8 oz. and are clearly marked, without any small print. There are no 6½ or 7 oz. packets. If one factory can do that, others can, too.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the need for education. It is, of course, most important. I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), when he rather suggested that the working-class home had less access to knowledge and education in consumer choice and good buying. I am afraid that most working class wives have to learn in the school of experience. The fact that their purses are limited means they learn in a very hard school indeed, but they soon learn how best to lay out their money, because they have not much to lay out.
Existing organisations can do a good job. Young married people setting up home need to be able to select furnishings and furniture with some knowledge of what is good and what is cheapjack. It cannot be done by looking at packaging. It needs a great deal more knowledge than one can pick up. This is a job for local authorities by means of special classes for young marrieds. Promoted at the right time and in the right way these would attract young people and be a practical help to them.
I said that I would talk about services as well as goods. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) spoke about this in regard to motor cars. The consumer needs more protection here. I take my car to be serviced because I am no good at mechanics. The coupon mentions 23 items to be looked at at a set rate. I check what has been done. According to the coupon, the wheels ought to have been changed round, but on the last occasion this has not been done. I immediately wonder what other jobs on the coupon have not been done. Much the same argument applies to television repairs. We are entirely in the hands of the technician. Unless protection is afforded, there is no means by which a consumer can decide whether a new tube is needed for a television set and


whether a repair should cost 5s., £5 or £20.
Perhaps we should achieve most success by establishing publicly-owned centres to deal with these matters—centres with no profit motive. With the funds which they have at their disposal, the A.A. and R.A.C. might consider extending their breakdown services and establishing their own garages where no profit would be made and where one would get the service that one asked for and where the members would be in control.
I would especially bring to the attention of the House the need for protection in respect of the consumption of drugs. I would quote from a recent B.M.A. conference:
In a recent Report on Health Education of a Joint Committee of the Central and Scottish Health Services Councils, there appeared the following; "An unreasoning trust in the efficiency of patent medicines, based largely on the advertisements of the manufacturers, does much to hinder a true understanding of how health can be maintained and frequently leads to harmful delay in diagnosis and medically supervised treatment.'
The panel discussing this went on:
Reflect on the pharmaceutical junk that rests upon the shelves of the average retail pharmacy. Do we need to dose ourselves with vitamins, tonics, purgatives and such-like? What has the Pharmaceutical Society done to save consumers wasting money on this useless rubbish? Why doesn't the Society, instead of fretting about resale price maintenance, concern itself more with the fundamental question: "Is retail pharmacy a business or a profession?'
I think that it is a profession, and that there is a duty on pharmacists to diminish this self-medication. In spite of the problems that general practitioners have, the general practitioner is the only person who can give medicine, because he is the only person who can diagnose what the complaint really is and prescribe the right treatment.
We have sought protection for consumers by means of the Dunlop Committee. It seeks to avoid further thalidomide troubles. But every few months we read in the Press about some drug which has been used for some time, but is now proving to be harmful in certain circumstances and to certain patients. I suggest that the minority Report of the Dunlop Committee, of which the former Member of Parliament for Putney, Sir Hugh Linstead, was the

chief signatory, should be considered by the Government with a view to strengthening the machinery which exists but is not as effective as it might be.
At Cardiff last night, the Chairman of that Committee, Sir Derrick Dunlop, spoke of:
formidable and skilled promotion of drugs by pharmaceutical houses, some of which is subject to justifiable criticism in violating truth and good taste".
The public needs protection against this kind of thing. The dispensing of drugs is part of the general pattern of modern life. We rely upon it and it is very different from merely taking an occasional aspirin or bottle of cough mixture.
The Birmingham Public Analyst, Mr. F. G. Stock, has done more in this direction than any other figure in the pharmaceutical world. It is not just a matter of the therapeutic qualities of the drug, but whether what is on the label is in the bottle or in the label. I will not weary the House with a long list of the analyses which Mr. Stock has made, but among the examples are that of 120 samples of penicillin, 38 were found to be deficient, and one deficient by 90 per cent.; of 67 samples of barbiturates, 42 were rejected; anæsthetics are sometimes 20 per cent. stronger than the label says and two out of three firms' products proved to be entirely unsatisfactory.
Hon. Members have referred recently to technological advances. A new development in medicine has been the use of disposable syringes. It was found by Mr. Stock that there could be as much as a 20 per cent. variation between one syringe and another, and with modern drugs this could make an important difference to the treatment prescribed by a general practitioner. These are matters not of protecting only the consumer's pocket, but of protecting his health and his life. It may not be so important that an aspirin is more chalk than aspirin, but with modern, high-powered drugs it is extremely important because of the terrific damage which can result from a wrong dose, as we have seen in some cases.
There is another sense in which the consumer needs protection. The drug tetracycline is retailed at £5 per 100 tablets, the pharmacist getting £6 plus a dispensing fee. Under present import conditions, some importers can supply


pharmacists with this drug at £2 per 100, which means that the consumer, in this case the National Health Service, is paying something more than £6 for an article which costs only £2 in the first place.
The National Health Service pays £100 million a year for drugs, yet an enormous amount of money goes into promotion costs so that these drugs can be distributed. The Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries has shown that £5·6 million was being spent on promotion three years ago, £1·9 million on mailing to doctors, £·8 million on free samples and £2·9 million on paying commercial travellers to persuade doctors to presscribe these medicines. I understand that the total figure has now risen to £8·5 million. This means that for every doctor £112 per year was being spent to persuade him to prescribe certain medicines, and obviously the consumer pays in the end. Some hon. Members recently visited a drug firm which had 70 representatives costing a total of approximately £140,000 while a five-year research budget was £60,000 excluding the pay of researchers.
I am extremely sorry that I have not time to speak at length about hearing aids. As hon. Members will have observed, I wear a hearing aid. I would have liked to have gone into this matter, which is the biggest racket in the country. In 1947, 1,750,000 people needed hearing aids. We have not had a census since so that we do not now know what the score is, but it is clear from what hon. Members have told me privately that many of them have hearing difficulties and consumer protection is urgently needed for them, too if they seek a remedy.
The worst case is the door-to-door salesman who demonstrates to a deaf person a hearing aid and says to him, "Can you hear the clock ticking?" The person answers "Yes", and he is so pleased that he purchases for a large sum of money a hearing aid when, perhaps, an operation which is effective for some forms of conductive deafness would have been much better and would have been worth while for the patient.
I have always had the vague dream that one day, as an hon. Member, I shall get into a debate not feeling that time is pressing on my shoulders, and be able

to spread myself for an hour or an hour and a quarter. I had hoped for that on this occasion, but, unfortunately, that cannot happen as many of my hon. Friends want to get in, so I must cut out half of what I wanted to say. Unless we give a higher priority to the whole question of consumer protection, the job of the Commission on prices and incomes will be worthless and useless. This is a task which should be right in the forefront of all the political action that we are taking, because if we are not effective here a lot of other things that we hope to achieve during the next three or four years of this Labour Government will be ineffectual.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY SUPERANNUITANTS

7.36 a.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: I wish to change the subject, and I hope that I am in order in doing so, because I have waited all night to bring before the House the subject of a Motion which has been on the Notice Paper since the beginning of this Parliament, namely,
That this House notes with regret that the Pensions (Increase) Acts do not provide for railway superannuitants whose pensions fail to match rises in the cost of living, and urges Her Majesty's Government to rectify this anomaly in future legislation.
That Motion has been signed by no fewer than 111 hon. Members from both sides of the House, showing the large amount of support that it has in the House. Therefore, I think it very important that we should devote a little time to dealing with it.
I hope that the Select Committee on Procedure will take serious notice of what has been happening in the House over the last 24 hours, so that it can make arrangements in future for us to debate important subjects like this under more sensible conditions.
The last time that I raised this matter in the House was nearly five years ago, on the day when, by a coincidence, I became a superannuitant, but I hasten to say not a railway superannuitant, and, therefore, I have no interest to declare, beyond the fact that I have the honour of being the honorary president of the British Railways Superannuitants' Federation, a body


created by about 30,000 railway superannuitants to try to get justice in this matter.
Incidentally, all these people were contributors to superannuation funds. They paid their contributions, a percentage of their salaries, in the hope of getting a reasonable pension. Indeed, it was a reasonable pension as these pensions went at the time it was received, but, as we all know, the value of the £ has deteriorated drastically over the last few years. For example, the £ of 1951 had fallen to 13s. 9d. in December, 1963. To take another example, in April of last year it required 34s. 1d. to buy the amount of goods bought by a £ in 1947–48.
Everyone recognises the difficulty. There is great sympathy for these people not only from the 111 hon. Members who have signed the Motion, but from the Minister, and from the Railways Board. I am glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is present, because she will probably refer to a letter from the Railways Board expressing sympathy with this case. The hon. Lady has been a very faithful fighter in this matter. This is entirely non-political. It is something which urgently needs attention by whichever Government happen to be in power, and up to the present not sufficient has been done.
I say that not sufficient has been done, because something has been done. There have been five different increases following the Pensions (Increase) Acts. Those Acts give supplements to pensions of civil servants, local government officers, teachers, members of the police and the fire brigade, and all sorts of public servants, including even people like the staff of the Raw Cotton Commission.
Unfortunately, the railway salaried staff have been considered not to be public servants. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Someone says, "Hear, hear". I hope that that does not mean that he agrees that they should not be regarded as public servants. What is a public servant? By our legislation we have created so-called public corporations—the nationalised industries—and the theory is that as they are outside complete Government control their employees are not directly public servants.
But in some of these industries—for example, the gas and electricity industries—the superannuitants have been able to get supplements nearly equivalent to those of civil servants and others who get supplements under the Pensions (Increase) Acts. Their supplements broadly follow the increases given by those Acts, and they are paid not from the superannuation funds, but from revenue.
The last time this matter was debated the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, said that railway salaried employees were not employees of the British Transport Commission but that the Commission had inherited them from the old companies. He was misinformed about that. There may have been a few still existing from the old companies, but most of them have now retired from the Commission, which is now the British Railways Board. So that argument falls to the ground. They are people who retired after contributing to superannuation funds, but the value of their pensions has fallen considerably. That is why they are in their present difficulty.
They are grateful for increases which have been given, but they are much below those given under the Pensions (increase) Acts, and the pensions which they would be getting if they retired now. Let me give two examples. A stationmaster who retired in 1955 and who now is over 70 years of age would be getting an additional supplement. He will now be getting a pension of £350, including the additional supplement in respect of those over the age of 70, whereas if he retired now his pension would be £480. A clerk in similar circumstances would be getting £250, whereas if he retired now he would be getting £320. There is a considerable difference between those two amounts, and the figures I have given illustrate how necessary it is for some supplement to be given.
The question is: who will give the supplement? In the past the Ministry has always said that it is not its responsibility; it is the responsibility of what is now the British Railways Board. The Board, on the other hand, says that as it is in financial difficulties it cannot do anything without the consent and financial


support of the Minister of Transport. The employees seem to fall between the two.
Let us examine the matter and see whose responsibility it is. In reply to a Question I asked on 10th February, the Minister of Transport told me that it would cost about £1 million to bring these pensions up to the level of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, and the line has always been that it is impossible to pay this money because the railways are in deficit at the present time.
But despite being in deficit, the railways have paid wage increases and my suggestion is that just as they had to find money from somewhere to pay wage increases, they should be able to find money to pay the necessary supplements for the pensions of retired staff.
If we are to take the criterion that there must be profitability before proper pensions are paid, what becomes of all these other classes of public servants I have mentioned, the firemen, the police, the teachers and the Cotton Commission staff? They are paid the increases, and I suggest that the same principle should be the basis on which railway pensions are paid.
I did mention the gas and electricity boards, which I think are the closest analogy to the Railways Board, and the fact that the means have been found to pay extra to their retired employees nearly equivalent to the Pensions (Increase) Acts is, I think, the best argument for doing something similar for the railways.
I notice in a Written Answer given on 24th March that there has been a serious deficiency in the pension fund of B.O.A.C. and that means have been found for dealing with that. Parts of that Answer reads:
a scheme has been agreed with the trustees whereby part of this liability will be liquidated out of interest earnings in excess of the valuation rate and the balance by annual payments over 30 years to 31st March, 1992.
Whatever method is adopted, I suggest that it is high time that something was done. The moneys of the railway superannuation funds are not invested outside, as is the money of most superannuation funds. These moneys remain for the benefit of the Railways Board, and in other words it is like a cheap loan for

them. They show in their books the sum of £150 million for which they allocate 4 per cent. interest. That means that, in fact, the Railways Board has the benefit of an investment of £150 million at 4 per cent. interest, which is, of course, below the market rate at which they could borrow.
By showing something nearer the market rate—say, another 1 or 2 per cent.—the Board could go a long way towards providing the money for the settlement I have suggested. In fact, in 1958, the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries drew attention to this point and recommended that this rate of interest should be carefully examined.
I suggest that the Minister cannot evade responsibility in this matter. The Minister should give his consent to the Railways Board to pay the proper rate of pension and make up the old pensions to something like the amount we recognise for other public servants. As it seems likely that we are going to have a further Pensions (Increase) Act in the very near future, I hope that that Act will include a Clause to bring in railway superannuitants.

Orders of the Day — PORTS (DEEP-WATER BERTHS)

7.49 a.m.

Mr. R. W. Brown: I would like, if I may, to change the subject and I do so because there was an item on the notice relating to the new deep-water berths in British ports.
This seemed to me to be rather an important subject, and it is with great regret that I note that the hon. Member who put it down has failed to arrive at the House this morning to give us the benefit of his knowledge on these matters. I feel that I ought to have something to say about it, because it seems to me very clear that the interests of the nation as a whole depend very much upon the workings of our ports.
We have heard a lot about what is holding up traffic through the ports. We have heard people making allegations and getting no further than the staff who are working at the ports, when there is clear evidence from time to time that the whole concept of our port working is out of date.
I believe this to be a very important subject, especially since my right hon. Friend the First Secretary is doing everything humanly possible to get under way a climate in this country to ensure that we get the industrial expansion and the export drive going, so as to get us out of the difficulties which the nation found itself in after October of last year. Therefore, if, as seems clear, he is achieving this objective, inevitably the ports will have to be utilised to their maximum, so that this country is able to cope with the increase in exports we are hoping to Achieve.
Therefore, I think that it is a fair question now to ask my hon. Friend whether he can inform the House what has taken place since the Rochdale Committee reported on the conditions of our docks in September, 1962. I am one of those who believe that any report takes time to digest. It takes time to look at it in its broadest panorama and to see how it fits in with the issues at stake. Nevertheless, from September, 1962, is a long time to wait before we see any results of the investigation that was carried out.
That Committee's Report was welcomed by the Parliamentary Secretary at the time, on 6th March, 1963, and column 395 of HANSARD records how he welcomed this with great pleasure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) also, on 10th July, 1963, welcomed the Report and certainly gave one the impression that he would do something worth while about it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) drew attention, on 10th July, to the shocking conditions in the ports and the very sorry state we have got into. The point was being made, of course, that up to 50 years ago, the ports were very well run, but what they began to indicate to us was that there has been a complete lack of development hereafter.
Paragraph 62 of the Rochdale Report sets out clearly the criteria for the selection of ports for development, and it says:
One most important factor, as we have suggested in the previous paragraph, is the possibility of providing deep water berths.
It goes on, in paragraph 63, to draw attention to the fact of how poorly off this country is compared with the Con-

tinent, and it shows that, considering just limited depths over 15 feet, nearly half of the British ports are at the lower end of the scale. That is, if you take over 15 feet, but under 25 feet in depth, this country has over half, whereas such Continental ports as Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp have only a quarter which are in that part of the scale.
It is significant, too, that paragraph 63 ends:
Nevertheless it is our conviction that the provision of additional deep water dry cargo berths in Britain is one of our most pressing problems and some of the specific recommendations we make in Section VIII derive from it.
The point I would like to make to the House is that the result of this Committee's Report clearly gave rise to the assumption that the Government of the day would do something about the deep-water berths.
I should like my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to tell me exactly what has been done since that Report was received. I am sure that he is seized of its importance for the standard of living of our people and for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary in being able to achieve his incomes and prices policy, to establish his regional councils, to get our whole economic situation under control and to expand exports, which means using our docks to the maximum.
I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will be able at least to give us an undertaking that even if nothing was done in the past, he will certainly see that something is done in the future.

Orders of the Day — CONSUMER PROTECTION

7.56 a.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: I have been in the Chamber since eleven o'clock last night, now nearly nine hours, and it has been a great experience. The interest and the energy that have been displayed should surely encourage us to have more all-night sittings so that hon. Members on this side can really get an opportunity to do their duty by their constituents and by the people.
I am at the tail end of the subject of consumer protection. I should have liked the public to recognise that through the hours of the night Labour Members have been like guardian angels, looking after


the interests of the nation while it sleeps. Consumer protection is of tremendous importance, because it is not simply what a person gets in his pay packet that matters: it is what the money buys that matters. The need is that they shall get a fair deal for their money.
At this hour, I have neither the energy nor the time to make the speech that I would have made earlier. Reference has been made to the subject on which I should like to concentrate as another round in connection with the exposure of the Universal Health Studios Ltd. I recognise that in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill it is not permissible to suggest anything that would require legislation, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade has announced at the Box, there is much more than legislation for the protection of the public. It is necessary either to educate or, at least, to warn the public what is going on in their midst.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State said he thought that the Universal Health Studios Ltd. had changed its ways and that at long last the public would get a square deal. It should be known that the Universal Health Studios Ltd. in this country is an offshoot of the big Vic Tanny Enterprises, Inc. of America that was forced to close down in 1963. The reason for that is that the law is much more severe in that country than in this. My hon. Friend has referred to the United States Federal Trade Commission, We all know by now that, according to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, a new managing director, Mr. Philip Phillips, is now in control. As I said in the House a week or so ago, this is a "stooge" appointment. We had hoped, nevertheless, that there would be a change of ways, that the sales manual would have been dropped, that there would have been changes with regard to the legal department, and that at long last there would have been set up a complaints committee of J.P.s and other prominent people to see that the public get a square deal.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State hoped that at long last the public would get a fair deal. I should like to refer to a remark made by Mr. Bowman-Shaw, reported in the Daily Telegraph of Wed-

nesday, 24th March, which is the crux of the whole affair. These are his words:
There is about £1½ million in credit outstanding. This was one of the attractions for Mr. Phillips.
I would say without any doubt that the aim of the Universal Health Studios Ltd. even now is not to give the public a square deal nor to do anything about making the body beautiful.
Mr. Philip Phillips is really a debt collector, and nothing more. There is no doubt that, after years of press-ganging members of the general public to join, contracts have been signed involving £1 million and more. It is on that score that the Universal Health Studios Ltd. continues to extort as much money as possible from the public, who have been press-ganged into signing those contracts over a long period.
The most important part of the Universal Health Studios Ltd. is the legal department. We had hoped, with the pressures which have been brought to bear, that this so-called legal department would have ended. Undertakings were given by Mr. Phillips that that would be done. In the last few days, there has been unprecedented enthusiasm in the legal department. All over Britain, people are receiving letters from the legal department, giving them 14 days to pay up, or they will be taken to court. This is an absolute and utter scandal. This letter is headed "Legal Department", and the wording appears to be an infringement of the 1957 Solicitors Act. It says:
Legal Department, 19th March, 1965.
…From our records, we see that the sum of £24 15s. 0d. is still outstanding under your contract, and this is long overdue. We now have instructions to take proceedings against you in the Croydon County Court, for recovery of this sum, and this will be done unless this amount is received in this Office within 14 days.
Without prejudice, however, we would be prepared to accept the sum of £12 10s. 0d. in full and final settlement of all claims against you, providing that this sum is paid within the time stated above. If you avail yourself of this offer, the Contract will be rescinded.
I have files of letters which have been sent in the last few days, some in respect of £50 and others for £25, to people who have not had any correspondence with the company for about 12 months. These are cases of the most blatant press-ganging, which even the previous Administration had given up as a bad job. Now


there is £1¼ million in the pipeline and Mr. Philip Phillips is doing his best to get some of it as soon as he can.

Mr. Rhodes: Has my hon. Friend any evidence to show that this kind of pressure is being put on people who ceased to take courses because of physical incapacity, since the Minister of State said earlier that the company had promised that it would allow people who could not continue on medical grounds to pull out of the courses?

Mr. Dodds: It includes everyone; those who never even had one lesson and those with illnesses. What is more, there is no one in the legal department there who has any legal qualifications whatever. The nearest to someone with legal qualifications is an Indian law student. And the man in charge has had two terms of imprisonment, has been heavily fined for purporting to be a solicitor and has been banned by the Law Society from having a job in any solicitor's office. It is an absolute and utter scandal that tens of thousands of people in Britain are today being not only fleeced, but that some of them have become nervous wrecks, having received a succession of letters threatening to take them to court.
This has been going on for a long time and I am asking for protection to be given to consumers against this sort of thing, for it is obvious that our laws are too weak. They must be when people in America are forced to close up shop because of the Federal laws there but they can come here and open up shop, and then proceed to fleece people and hound them, as they are doing in this case. It is an absolute and utter scandal. Can we not do more to protect people from being fleeced by these American methods?
It must be remembered that the clubs do not have instructors who are qualified to look after the people who attend them. I have received many letters indicating that people are doing harm to their health because qualified instructors are not present. Indeed, some of the instructors contradict each other to such an extent that damage is done to people's health, apart from them losing their money. It is scandalous.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has given me permission to quote from a letter written

by someone in his constituency. It states:
Last May my wife attended the Manchester branch of the Universal Health Studios, where, due to lack of supervision by a qualified gymnast she suffered an injury to her hip.
My wife wrote to the Universal Health Studios pointing out that due to this injury she was unable to carry on the course but would do so when the injury was cured and until such time that it was could payments be deferred? In due course she received a letter from the Universal Health Studios stating that deferment was not possible…
My wife again wrote to them enclosing a doctor's note confirming her disability. This letter was eventually replied to. But even this was not acceptable. Since that time my wife has seen two orthopaedic specialists and is at present attending Withington Hospital daily for treatment.
I have again written to the Universal Health Studios enclosing a photostat copy of the hospital report in the hope—possibly forlorn—that they will take a human view of the case and avoid legal proceedings.
It is now ten months since my wife sustained the injury and during this time she has and indeed is still suffering considerable pain, often preventing her from doing normal housework.
Both my wife and myself are keen on keeping fit, but in this regard I am lucky. You see, I can attend the Y.M.C.A. for £4 10s. a year and be trained by a fully qualified instructor. Unfortunately, there is no similar club available for women in Manchester and, consequently, my wife appears to have fallen victim to the now apparently notorious Universal Health Clubs.
That is typical of the many letters I have received.
One thing is certain; if it were not possible to advertise to get floods of new recruits into these buildings, it would not be possible for a business like this to continue. The advertising, which is left in the hands of voluntary organisations, is enabling these people to get recruits. They want recruits, and what they want to do is to disappoint them as soon as they can get hold of their money in order to make room for more to go in. This has gone on for years. They have 70,000 members at present and they have 30 clubs, and but for what was said in this House they were planning another 85.
We had hoped that with this changed front, this Mr. Phillips, we would at last have seen the end of the long trail of misery, but I am afraid that the trail of misery not only continues but has during the last few days been accentuated. The hopes of my hon. Friend the Minister of State have, like those of so many


other people, been disappointed, yet nothing can be done in this House. It is a scandal, and I only wish that I had more time to give more cases.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want help about this. We are getting the reply to a debate rather separated from the topic, are we not?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can I explain the situation? We have had a succession of three speeches on quite different subjects. The last speech, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) reverted to a debate that had been replied to by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, but two of my hon. Friends previously have raised problems that concern my Department, and I am here, prepared, as I have been all night, to reply to those two hon. Friends. So before further speeches are made, and subjects raised. I should like, if possible, to reply to my two hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot manage this without being unjust to someone, so I must choose the least harmful method at the moment. Mr. Swingler.

RAILWAY SUPERANNUITANTS

PORTS (DEEP-WATER BERTHS)

8.13 a.m.

Mr. Swingler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am in this difficulty. Two of my hon. Friends have raised subjects that are widely separated, except that they both concern my Department and both concern the expenditure of considerable funds. Otherwise they are unlike. But I will make separate replies to them, because both are important issues. To my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, I can only say that he will recall what was said—a short time ago—by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade. My hon. Friend the Minister of State said that he would take note of any further speeches made on the subject of consumer protection after he had spoken, and I have no doubt that

he will give immediate attention to the very serious facts produced by my hon. Friend, and let him have a reply in correspondence.
I wish to turn, first of all, Mr. Speaker, to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd). It was no surprise that he raised this subject; as is well known, he is the President of the British Railways Superannuitants Federation. He has been a persistent campaigner on behalf of railway pensioners, and has put the case in his usual cogent way for many thousands of members of his Federation.
I am sure that my hon. Friend knows—indeed he started by saying so—that these questions of railway superannuation are the responsibility in the first instance—and I do not wish to evade in any way the responsibilities of the Ministry of Transport—of the British Railways Board. Such responsibility has since nationalisation always belonged to the Board or its predecessor. We still maintain the view that it would be inappropriate for the Minister of Transport to interfere in what is, in the first place, a matter for the Railways Board.
My hon. Friend granted that the Board has from time to time considered the position of railway superannuitants and, as he said, five schemes of supplementation have been introduced on the initiative of the Board itself. This shows evidence that the Board is conscious of the need to do something for superannuitants and is sympathetic towards their problems in face of the persistently rising cost of living. But, as we all know, the Board has been faced with the problem of limited resources and, in particular, has had to have regard to the very heavy deficit of recent years when considering the question of paying higher pensions or of meeting any other call upon its resources.
I turn now to the question of comparability which my hon. Friend raised. He referred to the comparison with, for example, pensioners of the gas and electricity boards. It is true that these pensioners have had the same increases as have been granted to public service pensioners, on the ground that many of them were formerly employees of local government bodies and, therefore, had a claim under the Pensions Increase Acts. Here, we come to the question of


who are public servants. Again, I do not want to split hairs with my hon. Friend about it. The distinction is the distinction between those who are in any way Government servants and those who may be public servants of some other kind, which railwaymen certainly have been and are, though they are not Government employees.
The Pensions (Increase) Acts applied to the employees of central and local government, but not beyond that, although others may well be rightly called servants of the community. Because the employees of the gas and electricity boards were, in many cases, previously government employees in the sense of being local government employees, the Pensions (Increase) Acts were applied to them. The same consideration does not apply to railway pensioners.

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Gentleman will agree that many of the gas employees were employees of private gas companies, yet they have benefited from the Pensions (Increase) Acts. Are not railway superannuitants in an exactly similar position? I have no doubt that the same comparison can be made with reference to pensioners of the old electricity companies. When the Labour Government nationalised the railways, did not they think of the position they were creating for these old railway company superannuitants?

Mr. Swingler: That was quite a good speech. I reply to it in this way. I was not stating what I thought was proper in justice. I was stating only what had historically arisen. The hon. Lady is quite right in saying that many of these workers were previously employed by companies in private ownership, but some of them were employed by undertakings in municipal ownership and, therefore, they have had the benefit of the application of the Pensions (Increase) Acts. That is how comparability between their position with respect to superannuation after nationalisation and the position of State or local government servants arose.
It did not arise in the case of railway superannuitants for the historical reason that they had not actually been State servants or local government servants. As I say, I am not arguing the case that it is not fair to bring them for-

ward or that there ought not to be comparability. All I am doing at the moment is showing how the question has arisen and how the employees of the gas and electricity industries have been regarded differently, for the historical reason that they were at one time local government servants.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is it not merely a convenient administrative fiction that the employees of the nationalised railways are not public servants? If the Government, when they nationalised the railways, had treated railwaymen in the same way as, for instance, the employees of the Post Office are treated, they would have come under the Pension Increase Acts, but because the railways were called a public corporation the railwaymen are assumed not to be directly public servants. I suggest that this is a mere convenience from the point of view of the Government and that they are, in fact, just as much public servants as those in the gas and electricity industries, the Post Office and elsewhere.

Mr. Swingler: Again, we could no doubt argue this for a considerable time but that it not the position. There is a clear difference between those who are State employed or local authority employed and those who are employed by the corporations, which are publicly owned but nevertheless independent of the State or of the local authorities.
Of course, the difference is that the schemes under which these employees live and work, whether they be in active work or whether they be pensioners, are administered by the management of the corporation. They are not directly the responsibility of the State. In the case of the railway superannuitants, their position is primarily a matter for the Board and, in particular, it is a financial question for the Board because it is responsible for the funds it took over.
I now pass to the question of the financial position of the Board. Its liability for the pensions of salaried staff is a very great one. The cost of the pension increases currently being paid to superannuitants amounts to £1,300,000 per annum. The Board has responsibility for meeting the cost of the deficiency arising in connection with various railway superannuation funds. These accrued deficiencies total about £112 million,


which the Board is liquidating at the rate of £6½ million per annum.
In addition, it has a liability of £6 million a year in respect of interest payable on funds deposited with the undertaking and nearly £4½ million for the employer's matching contributions to the superannuation funds. The Board, therefore, has a heavy financial liability in relation to pensions and, in addition to superannuation schemes already entered into, subvents the basic pensions of superannuitants through a deficiency payment amounting to £6½ million a year.
The point, therefore—and my hon. Friend was right to emphasise it—is that, because we are faced with a situation where the Board is seriously in deficit, a proposal for further increases to be granted to superannuitants would automatically increase the amount of the railway deficit and must increase the amount of Exchequer grant that has to be met and borne by the taxpayer as a subsidy to the Board.
That is the position with which we are faced, and my hon. Friend pressed the point that the Government should agree to increase the Exchequer grant to the Board in order to enable it to give further pension increases. Our position is that, first of all, this must be a matter for the Board itself to consider in relation to other payments that are being made but, of course, we are open to representations from the Board on the matter at any time.
I should in fairness make the point that there is a respect in which railway superannuitants are more fortunate than a good many other retired people because the great majority of them receive their National Insurance pensions in addition to their occupational pensions. That is true. I am sure that my hon. Friend would therefore agree that most railway superannuitants will benefit from the very substantial State pension increases which the Government are introducing next week.

Mr. H. Hynd: There is some misunderstanding here. These supplements are not paid to any railway superannuitant who also gets the State pension. Until recent years railway salaried staff were

excluded from National Insurance and many of them did not qualify for retirement benefits.

Mr. Swingler: My information is that the great majority of railway superannuitants get the retirement pension which the Government have substantially increased. I am prepared to investigate this further, but I am advised that the majority will benefit from the substantial increase in the State pension, which the Government will introduce next week. Therefore, it cannot be said that we are doing nothing as a Government for these people with whom we have the utmost sympathy; they will benefit in that respect. If there are criticisms I shall be most ready to consider further representations from my hon. Friend, and if there are anomalies I will look into the position.
May I sum up? In the first place, I must repeat that in our view this is primarily a responsibility for the Railways Board and not for the Government. It would not, therefore, in our view be proper at present for the Government to interfere in the affairs of the Railways Board by applying future Pensions (Increase) Acts to railway superannuitants, but we are open to any proposal or representation which the Board cares to make to us.
We fully understand that the railway superannuitant would like to get the same increases as have been granted to public service pensioners and the pensioners of some other nationalised industries, but in considering their claim the Railways Board have to take into account the fact that they are at present heavily in debt. It has to be remembered that many superannuitants benefit from the increases in State pensions. The Board have shown by the five supplementary schemes which they have introduced so far that they understand the difficulties and problems which are facing railway superannuitants, and no doubt, therefore, the Board will pay attention to the points which my hon. Friend has made tonight. I am sure that they will be studied by the members of the Railways Board who are concerned with these matters. They will be considered by them in relation to the review of public service pensions which, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced,


is now in progress. I assure my hon. Friend that the matter will receive further consideration and that if proposals are made to us by the Railways Board, we shall give them the most urgent and sympathetic consideration.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the hon. Member aware that quite recently I wrote on behalf of a railway superannuitant and asked Dr. Beeching whether he was considering bringing in a new Pensions (Increase) Act for the railway superannuitants, and that the answer was in the negative? All that the hon. Member said in his final remarks is, therefore, said out of the blue with no basis of background.

Mr. Swingler: I am afraid that that is not so. Dr. Beeching cannot bring in a Pensions (Increase) Bill. It is for Dr. Beeching and the members of the Railways Board in considering representations made to them to consider this criticism in relation to their own financial position and the Government's financial policy towards the nationalised industries, and then to inform us if they wish to make proposals. If they make proposals to us they will receive sympathetic consideration. But I am saying emphatically, that it is not for us as a Government, or the Ministry of Transport, to take the initiative in the matter. It is the responsibility of the Railways Board, managerially and administratively, to consider the position in relation to its finances, and, if it so wishes, to make proposals, and no doubt in due course it will do so.

Mr. H. Hynd: May I say, in justice to Dr. Beeching, that in a letter only last month he said that the matter would be kept under sympathetic review. But I must insist on this point, that these old superannuitants do not qualify for retirement pension. None of these supplements was given to any superannuitant. That must be borne in mind.

Mr. Swingler: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has made that point clear. The Chairman of the Railways Board has assured us that he will give sympathetic consideration to these representations, and I am quite sure that he will consider the speech of my hon. Friend in relation to discussions which the Board is having about the matter. I will myself study

the points that my hon. Friend has made, and if there are any further discussions which we should have with the Railways Board we shall certainly undertake them.
I hope the House will forgive me, if it feels that there is a suitable pause at this moment, if I turn to the proposals raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown). I was not able to squeeze in between my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend raised a matter which urgently concerns my Department, and it is one to which I should like to reply. This is a problem which was due to be raised by an Opposition Member, who gave notice some days ago that he intended to raise the question of the provision of deep water berths. A considerable amount of work was done in my Department, in order to prepare a full reply—

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not some question of a second speech taking place here?

Mr. Speaker: Not so far as I know. What happens is that we discuss the Question, "That the Bill be now read a Third time", and I think the hon. Gentleman has only spoken once to that. There was a paragraph in it, as it were, but it remains the same speech.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? If the Minister now replies to what I understand is a speech made by one of my hon. Friends on this matter of deep-water berths, will this then conclude the debate on this subject, because others of us are interested?

Mr. Speaker: This debate is not on one subject, and it just depends who catches my eye. I confess that at the present state of affairs I should be tempted to move on.

Mr. Swingler: My problem, Mr. Speaker, as you realise, is that if I had not moved up to this Box there was the possibility that several more subjects would have been raised. I might then have been accused of evading the responsibility of replying to the criticisms. Therefore, as you have noticed the paragraphing in my speech, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for it, I am continuing to turn to the other serious matter raised.
I was saying that an absent Member had given notice to raise this matter, and a considerable amount of time and labour was spent in my Department to prepare the facts on this extremely important national issue. But it appears that, without giving notice to me, this Member contracted out of our proceedings in the course of the night. Nevertheless, I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the question, because I think it is very important.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Member from this side of the House, who did not rise in his place to mention this subject, having given notice, was loth to take part in an exercise in which both Government and back benchers are taking part, in order to prolong this sitting and to lose the next day's business.

Mr. Swingler: I do not remember how long the hon. Gentleman has been in the House. But it has been quite common, Mr. Speaker, in the period of nearly 20 years that I have been in the House, to have all-night sittings on the Consolidated Fund Bill, because it is a great occasion for back benchers. If the hon. Gentleman does not realise that this is one of the great opportunities for freedom for back bench Members of this House to raise a variety of problems, he has not even begun to understand Parliament.
If the hon. Member who several days ago asked my Department to inquire into this very important issue of deep water berths did not understand that this subject could not be raised until late, but several hours before midnight said it was not convenient and he had to go home, then he has a great deal to learn about the ways of Parliament and our procedure. I say no more than that. [Interruption.] I have been here all night.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: rose—

Mr. Swingler: I have been here all night waiting for hon. Members to raise this subject.

Mr. Iremonger: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at one and the same time. I suggest we get back to deep-water berths.

Mr. Swingler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I draw the hon. Member's attention—oh, all right.

Mr. Iremonger: I am most obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I only wanted to say, with great respect, that I thought that what he said was entirely right—that it is indeed the privilege and the duty of this House to exercise its opportunities on this occasion, and, if necessary, to debate right up to the hour of the sitting of the next day, because this is indeed the occasion when back benchers are able to exercise their right to discuss any subject they like. Similarly, Friday's business is an opportunity for back benchers to discuss what they like, and so the House will be glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman, who has this regard for back benchers' rights to raise their own business, how he views back benchers looking forward to being able to proceed to discussion of a very important Bill which comes on at 11 o'clock in Friday's business.

Mr. Swingler: I do not know what on earth the hon. Gentleman is talking about. There is, I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree, nothing in my record which in any way points to my curbing the rights of back benchers. This is, as I said, one of the great occasions of freedom for back benchers. It is for Tory Members as well as Labour Members—if Tory Members care to be here. What is the point of hon. Members giving notice of matters they want to raise and then departing because the clock has passed midnight so that they are not here to discuss those subjects? That is all I have to say on that. I exempt the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) who, I know, has been here all night, and who also knows and cares for the rights of back benchers.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the great importance of the work of the National Ports Council. The Rochdale Report revealed some years ago the inadequacy of investment in ports and negligence in the development of plans for port facilities, and did something to arouse even the previous Government out of their inertia. At any rate, two things emerged from that, first of all the establishment of the National Ports Council, and secondly, the passing of the Harbours Act. It is as a result of those two things that now we are able to make some


progress in regard to the provision of better port facilities for the future.
It is quite true, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that the Rochdale Report emphasised that this country is very badly off for deep-water cargo berths over 35 ft. deep compared with so many countries which are neighbours of ours and compete with us. The port of Antwerp alone has more than twice as many deep-water berths as all the ports of this country put together. Indeed, only five major British ports had any at all until quite recently. So it was not surprising that the Rochdale Report strongly emphasised the need for construction of more deep-water berths.
We are now in the position, at the beginning of 1965, that the interim development proposals of the National Ports Council are being discussed with port authorities up and down the country. We have not received these yet, but we understand that they include the construction of between 30 and 40 new deep-water berths as well as the renovation of 30 to 40 other berths.
As many hon. Members—many who are more expert and I am on this—will know, it is not satisfactory just to generalise about the matter. One needs to get down to the cases of particular trades. In respect of oil, for example, the Rochdale Report concluded that the provision of adequate berths for oil tankers should present no great difficulty in the future. At the moment all British oil refineries except one can be served by tankers of at least 65,000 tons, and the one exception to this will very soon be brought up to this standard.
At the moment a great amount of work is being done on the improvement of oil handling facilities. I will quote a few examples. At Milford Haven three new berths with 52 ft. depth were provided for Regent last year. A terminal is now being planned for the proposed Gulf Refinery. At Hull, in which some of my hon. Friends are interested, two jetties have been provided at Salt End for bulk handling of oil, chemicals and molasses. At the Isle of Grain in the Medway a new terminal is being constructed to handle 65,000 tonners. On the River Tees there is to be deepening and widening in order to take 65,000-ton tankers for the two new refineries there. To turn back again to the Humber, tests are at the

moment being carried out to determine whether the river can be dredged to enable 65,000 tonners to serve the three new refineries planned in the Immingham area, while a Bill is now before the House to establish an off-shore oil terminal at the mouth of the Humber for tankers of as much as 100,000 tons. So it will be seen that a great deal of work is going on to improve facilities for oil.
I turn to iron ore, which is extremely important. We shall have 65,000-ton ships operating in the United Kingdom trade soon. Our deepest berth now, on the River Tyne, can handle ships up to about 35,000 tons. But this may be improved as a consequence of the dredging going on there in order to take larger oil tankers. We know, of course, that the steel companies in South Wales are very concerned about this problem and are giving very special attention to it. That is why the Rochdale Report suggested that users should take the initiative in the promotion of new facilities. In the Ministry of Transport at this moment we are examining the Report of the National Ports Council on how to improve ore handling facilities for South Wales.
As many hon. Members know, it is an extremely complex issue and has aroused a great deal of controversy, but we hope to be able in a very short time to make a statement on the recommendations of the National Ports Council which will be followed, as we have promised, by a debate in the House in which all opinions can be expressed before any Government decision is implemented. But there is no doubt in our minds whatsoever that whatever facilities are provided must be capable of eventual development to take ore carriers of up to 100,000 tons.
I turn to grain. Here again is a trade where deepwater facilities are not adequate at the moment. The National Ports Council will be giving attention to this in its interim proposals. But I can say that, although the Rochdale Report, on advice from the trade, thought that provision for 22,000-ton ships would be adequate, it already seems prudent to us to provide for larger vessels at the main ports. Leith in Scotland is at the moment being developed and deepened, with the aid of a Government loan, to take ships of well over 20,000 tons at


the main grain facilities. A study is going on at Liverpool which will show what facilities are needed there for a new grain berth.
There are other bulk trades, of course, like coal. Discussions are now going on between the National Coal Board and the port authorities to ensure that modern coal handling appliances at berths of adequate depths will be provided as soon as possible, and plans for new appliances at Swansea and Immingham are already far advanced.
It is not clear that other bulk trades are handicapped generally by the lack of deep water berths, but it is possible that some users would like larger ships to use a port than can now be accommodated. At present, berths with 30–32 ft. of water are generally adequate for the larger types of cargo liner and any increase in size is likely to be gradual, but where new berths are being constructed, these should be of at least 35 ft. depth, provided that the port can accept ships of the appropriate size.

Mr. Wilkins: May I remind my hon. Friend—because this is a matter on which I wanted to speak, could I have done so—that the proposal for the deep-water berths at Portbury, Avonmouth, is that they should be not less than 45 ft.?

Mr. Swingler: I hope that nothing will inhibit my hon. Friend from speaking on this matter, because we shall benefit by hearing all views on the subject. We have this matter under constant consideration and we appreciate what might be done to assist in Bristol.
I was going on to say that cargo liners are normally built for the ports here and abroad which they are likely to serve, and depth limitations, therefore, are taken into account in construction. Obvious examples of this are liners constructed to navigate the Manchester Ship Canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Since the Rochdale Report appeared, five new liner berths have been completed at Lackenby Dock on the Tees, with the aid of a Government loan, seven at Liverpool as part of the Langton-Canada entrance scheme and later this year two will become available in the first stage of the Tilbury extension scheme, as well as two roll-on roll-off berths.
It is, therefore, fairly clear that although we are in the position of waiting for new proposals for further development of these terminal facilities, a great deal of work is now proceeding and we are now beginning belatedly to make an investment in the deep water berths which ought to have been provided years ago to give us the modern port facilities which we need.

Mr. T. G. Boston: Will my hon. Friend accept that many of us, especially on this side of the House, are very pleased to hear that the Government are pressing ahead urgently? Would he also confirm that besides the examples he gave, many others are being considered, such as those at Sheerness, a port recommended by the Rochdale Committee for major expansion? Is he aware that there is already under way a proposal which will provide for ships up to 35,000 tons and a draft of 35 ft. and eventually providing for ships of a draft of up to 40 ft., facilities which would undoubtedly help to overcome some of the congestion in the London Docks?

Mr. Swingler: That is certainly a possibility. I should like to emphasise that what I have said is only an interim progress report on what we are doing. The National Ports Council is at present engaged in discussing proposals with port authorities all over the country; nobody need be counted out, because the need to extend facilities is so great. We shall shortly be receiving from the N.P.C. their proposals and recommendations for investment; no doubt my hon. Friend's suggestion will be drawn to the Council's attention.
I want finally to refer to new port investment and especially to the provision of these deep water berths which have been so much needed to overcome the inadequacy which the Rochdale Report showed has existed for so long.
In 1963–64 investment was £14·7 million. In 1964–65 investment will provisionally be £23·6 million. In 1965–66 we are planning for an investment of £33·7 million. I emphasise that these figures must be related to discussions in the Department headed by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, because they must be fitted into the national economic plane. The achievement of them depends


on a constantly acelerating rate of growth. We are setting our sights high. We are determined to make up for the time lag revealed by the Rochdale Committee, and revealed also by the proposals under discussion by the N.P.C. We have a lot of leeway to make up to catch up with little Belgium, and to catch up with the things which ought to have been done in the last decade. We are determined to remedy the situation as rapidly as possible by a much higher rate of capital investment particularly in deep water berths which can do so much for our export trade.

DEFENCE POLICY (NORTHERN IRELAND)

8.51 a.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I hope that I shall practise the respect for other hon. Members' time which the hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport professed at the beginning of his remarks. I would not have chosen to speak at this hour of the day had it not been for the considerable worry at the back of my mind, and that worry will, I hope, emerge to be the Londonderry naval base and the Government's attitude thereto; but before I come to that there are one or two other topics which deserve to be aired.
High among the priorities listed at the General Election by the party opposite was development of the regions. After mentioning "Signposts for Wales", "Signposts for Wales," and "Signposts to the New Ulster," the manifesto went on to say:
For these three nations, as for the regions of England itself, control over the location of new factories and offices, inducements to firms to move to areas where industry is declining, the establishment of new public enterprises where these prove necessary, all these measures will be required to check the present drift to the South and to build up the declining economies in other parts of our country.
That was the manifesto.
I suppose that it might be thought a little churlish, after five and a half months tenure of office by the Government, to suggest that in their proliferation of signposts they have lost their way, but I think that it is fair, when looking at the challenge which the Government have set themselves, to ask whether one De-

partment is fully aware of what some others are doing. To attract new industry is one thing. To remove or to curtail scarce sources of existing employment is another.
There is one field in this regional context where the Government surely must have a decisive say, and that is in the location of defence establishments. But what is happening in Northern Ireland? The First Secretary, whom I am glad to see here, in an ebullient mood, broadcast to Ulster in August of last year and said—indeed, he said it several times:
You can build ships; you can make aeroplanes…these things we arrange for you to do.
I am certain that that seemed to the First Secretary a very good thing to say at the time, and I am certain that he meant it—I am not impugning his sincerity—but let us look at what happened about ships.
The other day one of my hon. Friends asked, in a Question, what orders had gone to the North and to Clydeside. A fairly large number, I will not read them all to the House, were given in the reply, but there were no orders for Belfast at all. May we be told tonight what this modernised shipyard can expect to be able to tender for in the future? We got the new aircraft carrier, but what else? We would like to know that.
Then I come to the question of aeroplanes, which the right hon. Gentleman said we could build. What has happened? The contract for the HS681 has been cancelled. That work was very necessary for Short's. So far, no alternative work has appeared on the horizon. Mr. Catherwood and his consultants have moved in, but so far from encouraging us to build aeroplanes in Northern Ireland it looks as if the Government think that the future of Short's lies largely outside the aircraft industry. We must see what further diversification Mr. Catherwood and his colleagues are looking into.
We hope that the Government will carefully examine the prospects of a forward-looking industry like electronically-automated machine tools and things of that kind. We will judge the diversification when it comes, but that must be some time ahead. It is clear that for the moment a large gap in employment will


yawn ahead unless further aircraft work it available. Perhaps we can be told what are the prospects of work when the Phantom is available, and also the names of the consultants concerned.
Another important question is the anxiety that is building up over the possibility of redundancy at the R.E.M.E. workshops at Kinnegan. That is a serious matter, and we should like our anxiety about it to be relieved.
I come now to the heart of the matter which worries me most, namely, the future of the joint anti-submarine school at Londonderry. Here, I find myself quoting the First Secretary again. In talking of Northern Ireland he said:
It will want its natural resources you know-the ports, the harbours, and all that, to be used.
That is exactly what we do want, and it is up to the right hon. Gentleman's Government to see what they can do.
All that the Government are doing so far is to threaten to close down the base. That is what I complain about. I hope that the Government have an open mind on this subject—because we know that the matter is still under review. I do not want to repeat my arguments, mainly strategic and economic, in the debate on the Navy Estimates, but I hope that consideration will quickly be favourably given to this matter. This is deeply worrying to my constituents. They are so disturbed that a public demonstration is being organised in the City and a public meeting is being held by the Mayor in the Guildhall. Trade union branches from all over the North-West are seeking to have tabled Motions supporting the campaign for the retention of the base.
If it were closed it might mean—in a town where there is now an unemployment figure of between 11 and 12 per cent.—another 30 per cent. unemployed. No doubt jobs could be found for 50 fitters and 60 skilled building trade operatives, but what about the storemen, drivers, and cleaners, many of whom are middle-aged? Where are they to go? In addition, it means a loss of £500,000 a year in trade to the City. Much of the work and money that the Harbour Commissioners have put into the port would be nullified by the disappearance of the base.
I do not want to go into any other arguments on the subject, except to remind the hon. Member once again that the great advantage of Londonderry is that it is closer to really deep water, which is necessary for the kind of exercises which are carried out, than anywhere in the south of England, which I understand would be the area envisaged for the change.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us something about the future of the R.A.F. station at Ballykelly, which is linked decisively with the anti-submarine training school. Londonderry provides a fine example of joint Service operational training arrangements—working
well together—of the very kind that we want to encourage. The Government have not closed their minds on this, and we want an answer soon—and a favourable answer.
I would have said that on every ground, human, economic and strategic, they should retain Londonderry. In recent years we saw the closing of the naval air station at Eglinton, the closing of the R.N. reserve ships and the departure of the R.A.F. from Aldergrove. I do hope that this apparent retreat of the Services from Northern Ireland will not be allowed to continue, because if it does it will leave behind not only a trail of human misery, but will have an effect on local recruiting which can only be detrimental to all three Services.
At a time when we are concentrating on building up employment, this is no time to consider removing defence establishments.
Unless the Government take effective steps to reverse the trends of industrial location we shall see two nations again, divided this time not by harsh class inequalities, but by geography.
These are not my words, but the words of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) who is Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Economic Affairs. They must have their application to defence establishments as well, and I hope that the Government will take them to heart, otherwise the fruits of Labour rule will taste very sour in the mouths of the people of Northern Ireland, particularly those of the unemployed in Londonderry.

9.2 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have listened to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) with a great deal of sympathy, and I hope, with some understanding of the human problem with which Northern Ireland is confronted. My constituency is not very far from Northern Ireland. Frequently, from its southern end, I see Northern Ireland and realise that the identity of interests between south-west Scotland and Northern Ireland is very strong.
In fact, I believe that it was Scotland which partly populated Northern Ireland and that there are a considerable number of people of Scottish descent, and especially people from Ayrshire, in Northern Ireland.
When I heard the hon. Gentleman speaking I wondered whether he had really got to grips with this problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland. For example, he referred to Londonderry, and he argued for the retention of the anti-submarine school at Londonderry as if such schools were basic industries and likely to produce a permanent solution to unemployment in Northern Ireland. I must confess that I think he took rather a superficial view of the position, because, after all, submarines are on their way out.
I do not know whether he has read some interesting articles in the Daily Express by the well-known correspondent, Mr. Chapman Pincher—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Perhaps I can save the hon. Gentleman some time here. I was not talking about submarines. I was talking about anti-submarine warfare training.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: How can the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) say that submarines are on the way out when his own Government have decided to go ahead and build four Polaris submarines?

Mr. Hughes: I was coming to that, and I am very much indebted for the intervention. As I understood the argument, there are to be anti-submariners at Londonderry without submarines. What is an anti-submarine school to do, if there are to be no submarines? Against whom will they conduct warfare?
I want to see Londonderry become the centre of a prosperous permanent industry. I do not want the people of Londonderry to accept the delusion that the way to establish industrial prosperity in Northern Ireland and secure permanent employment for the 11 per cent. unemployed in Londonderry is the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I think that he is following a chimera and a delusion here.
I want to refer to the arguments of the distinguished correspondent of the Daily Express, Mr. Chapman Pincher, who used to be quoted so often by the Paymaster-General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). He has this week suggested that the Polaris submarine is already obsolete and that technological advance has proceeded so far and at such a pace that Polaris submarines will be long obsolete before their base in Gareloch is completed.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend has said this before.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, I have said it before. I am John the Baptist, going before Mr. Chapman Pincher.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Londonderry, who has spoken eloquently and movingly about Northern Ireland, that he should try to work out a five-year plan for Northern Ireland quite apart from the anti-submarine school at Londonderry, because the development of that school will only lead to disappointment and disillusion. What I want to see in Northern Ireland is a prosperous permanent industry which will absorb labour not only from Northern Ireland, but from the other Ireland.
When I discovered that it was the defence of Northern Ireland that we were to discuss this morning, I thought in terms of the wider strategic implications. Who does Northern Ireland want to be defended against? [An HON. MEMBER: "You."] As far as I understand, military thinking in Northern Ireland does not regard the main enemy as Communism. It is more concerned with Roman Catholicism in Belfast than with Russian Communism.

Mr. James A. Kilfedder: I hope that the hon. Member will remember the sacrifices made by Northern Ireland in the last war, when it stood


by this country while the other part, Eire, refused to take part in the defence of democracy.

Mr. Hughes: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If the Northern Ireland people want to avoid the sacrifices of war, they could take the illustration of Southern Ireland, which did not make any sacrifices in the last war at all.
Indeed, the more I read about sacrifices in war, and think about it 20 years after, when history has receded, I wonder what the sacrifices were for. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has, no doubt, been watching the film of the war of 1914–18. We are all wondering what that war was about. The new generation which is coming along looks at the sacrifices made in the First World War and wonders what the ghastly business was all about. In due time, when history has receded another twenty years, we may find a new generation wondering what the last war was about and why so many of Northern Ireland's young men were sacrificed.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I want to be fair to Southern Ireland. In the two world wars, the number of Southern Irishmen who fought in the cause of freedom was as high as anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hughes: I quite agree that many people fought in the two wars without knowing what it was all about, especially people from Southern Ireland.
I do not wish to go into the very interesting history of Ireland in the two wars. What I am pointing out to the hon. Gentleman is that if he wants to see a sound economy in Northern Ireland, he should not link it to the armaments industries. I can understand his point of view absolutely, because I represent a constituency near Glasgow where the argument is frequently used that we must solve the problem of unemployment by getting more armaments orders. That is a complete delusion. It is deceiving the workers of Belfast and of Glasgow.
The hon. Member put up a suggestive argument that a new aircraft carrier—

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): Suggestive?

Mr. Hughes: I mean suggestive in the economic sense. I hope that my hon. Friend will not take out of my mouth words which I did not mean. I used the expression in the Dr. Johnson's dictionary sense of the word.
Take the appeal for a new aircraft carrier. When a new aircraft carrier is mentioned, immediately there is interest by shipbuilders in Belfast, on the Tyne and on the Clyde. It opens out a very good prospect of employment, because I understand that a new aircraft carrier costs £60 million. But then the aircraft have to be considered afterwards. The hon. Member referred to the Phantom aircraft, and he wants the aircraft also to be built in Belfast. The total sum for an aircraft carrier amounts to £200 million—for a vessel which could be sunk within a few minutes in the event of a rocket war.
I can understand that people who are unemployed will take jobs on anything. I quite understand the constituents of the hon. Member in Ireland and people in Glasgow saying that an aircraft carrier would bring them work. What we want, however, is productive work which is in line with the economic development of the country. If we go on building aircraft carriers, we will lose the great opportunity of building up a rational and intelligent shipbuilding industry.
The cost of an aircraft carrier is £200 million. I even heard it suggested in the debate on the Navy Estimates that we wanted at least four of them—£800 million. We could solve the problem temporarily by saying, "Glasgow, you can have an aircraft carrier. Belfast, you can have an aircraft carrier. And Tyneside, one for you, too". Would not everything in the economic garden be lovely then?
But we would then be faced with a gigantic increase in Government expenditure, the state of the £ would be precarious and probably action would be needed to save it. So instead of getting permanent employment in Belfast, we would get an economic crisis. In such a crisis, what would any Government do? They would immediately start to cut down, and one of the first things on which they would consider cutting down would be the aircraft carrier. I have seen it happen at Clydeside when a Conservative Government were in power.


When forced to economise as a result of their improvident policy, the Conservative Government cut down on the then "Queen Mary" and it was lying idle on the stocks for years and the people were out of work. So I cannot imagine that an aircraft carrier would be a solution of what is, indeed, a difficult unemployment problem in Belfast.
I look upon the demand for this kind of shipbuilding with some alarm, because it is not the kind of shipbuilding that the country needs. Everybody knows that people concerned with shipbuilding are greatly concerned about Japan. Japan is not building aircraft carriers. The result is that the Japanese yards are concentrating on building tankers. While we are engaged on building submarines, aircraft carriers and other warships and frigates, Japan will be able to build tankers, and we shall have considerable additions to the Navy to protect a shipbuilding industry which has practically ceased to exist.

Mr. Anthony Fell: The Tyne has got a ship this morning.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, but that is not nearly so many as Japan has.
I do not want the hon. Member unintentionally to deceive the people of Belfast. If there is to be a prosperous shipbuilding industry in Belfast, I believe that it must be the kind of shipbuilding needed in the modern age. I regard the speech of the hon. Gentleman—although well-intentioned—as one which is not likely permanently to help the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Why is my hon. Friend placing such emphasis on Belfast? Why does he not say a word about the Scottish shipbuilding yards?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. and learned Friend wants me to divert the debate to Aberdeen. Aberdeen is too far from Northern Ireland to appeal to me. All that I can say is that I have already linked up the shipbuilding industry in Belfast with the shipbuilding industry in the Clyde. I used the Clyde only as an illustration because I did not want to divert the debate. I am sure that if it went on to the subject of the Clyde, this debate would go on all the time.
I think that I have said enough to warn the Government not to be so enthusiastic about going ahead with that aircraft carrier. I read with some anxiety the speech of the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in January, when he held out the prospect of the new aircraft carrier. The argument will, presumably, be the usual one, that it will provide work, but have the Government any idea of what kind of work is needed? What does the building of an aircraft carrier imply? It implies taking away labour not only from other shipbuilding, but from housing. A very large number of the people employed on building an aircraft carrier are the same people—the electricians, the plumbers and the joiners—who would be needed on the housing front. Anybody who knows anything about Belfast, and about the slums of Belfast and of Londonderry, will realise that those workers would be better employed on building houses than on building things which are likely to be obsolete.
I therefore suggest that the hon. Gentleman has gone on entirely wrong lines in his attempt to find a solution to the problem of his constituents. Let me tell him that Northern Ireland is not purely Belfast. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) will agree with me, I am sure, that Belfast is not Northern Ireland. There are small farmers in Ulster. Where will they be if the hon. Member for Londonderry has his way?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Not in
submarines.

Mr. Hughes: I wish the hon. Gentleman would not take such a political outlook.
Far more people are engaged in agriculture in Northern Ireland than in any submarine school. At present, the small farmers of Northern Ireland, Aberdeenshire and Scotland generally are complaining about the size of their income. An extra burden of £400 million on our national expenditure would mean that in next year's Price Review there would be nothing left for the farmers. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not thought of that. Their minds move in separate compartments.
I want to protest against further burdens being placed on the farmers of


Northern Ireland, not forgetting the dairy farmers of South Ayrshire. What does the Ulster farmer have to pay for defence? If he has three children he pays £3 14s. 9d. a week for defence and the hon. Member for Londonderry wants him to pay more so that we can have more aircraft carriers and submarines that will be obsolete in 10 years' time. These are crackpot ideas and crackpot economies.
One remark in the hon. Gentleman's speech particularly caught my attention. He said that advance factories were going to Scotland and, after speaking about the lack of them in Northern Ireland, he complained bitterly. I do not know whether he wants nationalised advance factories in Northern Ireland, because we are looking forward to having publicly-owned industries. So we have this curious example of an hon. Gentleman opposite representing Northern Ireland wanting to see an extension of nationalisation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I did not mention advance factories or nationalisation.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will read in tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT that he did mention advance factories.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: Well, that was the implication of what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I neither mentioned nor implied them.

Mr. Hughes: In that case, I have merely carried the argument to its logical conclusion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I can always withdraw what I said, but perhaps I am right. The hon. Gentleman was calling for greater Government initiative in solving the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland. He spoke about signposts for Scotland. That interested me. Then he complained that there were no signposts for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: If the hon. Gentleman will read my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow I think that he will find it easier to understand than anyone will find his speech easy to understand.

Mr. Hughes: I almost despair of the hon. Gentleman. The people of Belfast

and Northern Ireland want a constructive industrial programme for the future, they want signposts, and something done for them, and the sole contribution of the hon. Member relates to an anti-submarine school at Londonerry—

Mr. Derek Page: Would my hon. Friend draw a parallel between the position in Northern Ireland and that in Norfolk, where a great deal of the local employment depended on an airfield were the aircraft suddenly developed metal fatigue, causing great distress in the area, with nothing to take the place of that employment?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is suffering from something else besides metal fatigue. I fancy that there was a trace of mental fatigue in his argument.
I am trying to work out this problem for Northern Ireland. If the hon. Member representing Northern Ireland cannot bring any positive industrial programme to Northern Ireland except an anti-submarine school, it is the duty of some of us to help them. I therefore suggest that they need advance factories there, but not the kind of advance factories connected with submarines.
If the hon. Gentleman had argued for helicopters, I could have understood it, because I am sure that I carry the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) with me when I say that there is a future for helicopters as civilian aircraft and in the export markets. If the hon. Gentleman had argued that Belfast could manufacture helicopters for export to the Chinese, I could have understood it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or Vietnam."]—or Vietnam, because we have to look forward from wars to the future development of Asia.
I look forward to the time when the horrible war in Vietnam is over, and when the people of Vietnam and of China are the greatest potential market for Britain in the world. The hon. Gentleman would have carried me with him 100 per cent. if he had said, "We want to build some helicopters in Belfast." It is the absolute poverty of thinking, the lack of imagination in Northern Ireland, that makes the Southern Irelanders almost despair of them.
Helicopters could be linked up with advance factories. We could have the


helicopters built in Belfast and have advance factories making small parts in Londonderry. We could find employment for people who might be redundant in the anti-submarine school—they could be employed in the advance factories, making spare parts for something that has a future and which would result in permanent value to the economy and people of Northern Ireland.
I therefore appeal to the hon. Members from Northern Ireland to concentrate on something like that, instead of coming here like Oliver Twist and going round to the Defence Ministries asking for more, which the country cannot afford. If they were to conduct a campaign demanding a greater advance on the great industrial front in Northern Ireland, the transference of money now being spent wastefully on certain aspects of the defence programme into advance factories which would provide useful work for the people there, I would be with them entirely. It is because I see that this Oliver Twist attitude of theirs is not getting us anywhere that I appeal to them to think in terms of the new planning of the economy of Northern Ireland.
I de not see why Northern Ireland should always be linked to the British economy. Why not be linked with the Southern Irish economy? Anyone who has been in Ireland recently must have seen that in Southern Ireland there is a great development of German industry. This is a curious situation, is it not? Germany lost the war, and yet the Germans are capturing the industry of Ireland. If there was a decently planned economy for the whole of Ireland, it would be possible to attract investment and establish industry on a sound basis.
There are certain economic advantages in being linked with Southern Ireland. Southern Ireland has no grandiose defence expenditure. The Irish in the South are not going in for aircraft carriers. They have no £3 14s. 9d. a week to pay out of their small farms to pay for defence.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on the initiative of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, this very situation is coming about? People in Northern Ireland are now realising where their best course lies. It

took a lot of courage, perhaps, but the initiative has come from the North in favour of the idea of prospering as a nation, North and South coming together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Wide as this debate is, the matter which the hon. Gentleman is now raising is one for Northern Ireland and Eire.

Mr. Hughes: I was conscious of that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I do not wish to wander into the fascinating labyrinth which my hon. Friend has invited me to enter. I was speaking purely of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is now suffering, as Scotland is suffering, from the effect of our vast defence expenditure.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: We are suffering, too.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, we are. If the hon. Gentleman has listened to my speeches in our defence debates, he will understand why. I thought for a moment that I had secured a rather unexpected convert.
If Northern Ireland Members want to develop a sound argument for the advancement of their economy, they could point out that the farmer who has to pay £3 14s. 9d. a week for defence expenditure has to compete with the farmer across the Border who has practically no defence expenditure to meet at all. The Scottish farmers are very perturbed about competition by the importation of Irish cattle. The Irish Government are able to subsidise the raising of cattle to compete with Scottish cattle because Southern Ireland has not got an enormous burden of defence expenditure.
I throw this out as a passing thought. Northern Ireland, instead of linking itself with the very problematical economy of Britain, should look south and see whether it could develop an economic programme which would result in greater prosperity for the people of all Ireland. I welcome this debate, and I am glad to have the opportunity to put forward some constructive suggestions. I know all the arguments which will be produced by Northern Ireland Members. What about Shorts'? What about Harland and Wolff?
We are familiar with them all. If they want to impress the Treasury, they should say, "We do not want any more naval


contracts. We do not want any more air contracts. We want subsidies for developing a really constructive industry in Scotland"—[Laughter.]—"in Northern Ireland which will be of permanent value". It will be of permanent value to Scotland, too, because we trade with Northern Ireland. We want to see a prosperous Northern Ireland, because it is an essential market for our goods.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My hon. Friend has misunderstood my former intervention. It was designed to draw attention to the importance of Northern Ireland departing from its position of isolation and of inter-relating its constructive policy to the constructive policies of Scotland and the rest of Ireland.

Mr. Hughes: I am not going to be sidetracked. I must speak in order in this debate and I am doing my best to do so, with your assistance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Let me warn hon. Members from Northern Ireland that the line they are taking will not deceive the people of Northern Ireland for very much longer. There is an awakening there. I do not say that the people of Northern Ireland will vote Socialist at the next election, but they might vote Liberal. I can already see the hon. Member for Londonderry shivering at the prospect. People may say, "We do not like Socialism in Northern Ireland but, after all, we had 13 years of Tory rule and the problems of unemployment; and even the problems of the anti-submarine base were not made by the Labour Government."
We have had 13 years of Tory rule in which all the Ulster Conservative Members were unanimous in their support of the Conservative Government. To what effect? At the end, they come along in this debate and present a dismal picture which did not originate in the time of this Government at all. The whole question of Northern Ireland should have been faced boldly, resolutely and determinedly long ago.
I asked hon. Members from Northern Ireland to beware of the fact that there might be a Liberal revival in Belfast, just as there has been in Roxburgh. This is indivisible. I hope the time will come when it is recognised in Northern Ireland that the programme I have outlined is

the only hope for Conservatism there. I hope that we shall not just hear Oliver Twist appeals any more, but something positive, something hopeful, something promising, something that will really gladden the hearts of the people of Northern Ireland.

9.38 a.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I am sure that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will forgive me if I do not follow him along his highway. The debate to follow is very important and I have no wish to obstruct the important business of tomorrow—or, rather, today. I will leave most of my notes to one side and comment only briefly, although I appreciate the hon. Member's confusion in mixing Scotland and Ireland. He referred to the Scottish settlement in Northern Ireland. If he casts his mind back further he will find that most of the Scottish families who went to Ireland at the time of the settlement of James I had originally come to Scotland from Ireland many centuries before.
The point I am most concerned with relates to the employment of some 20,000 men in my constituency. The amount of money spent in Northern Ireland in the last few years on defence projects is something for which there is no substitute and I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument about defence. I recognise the sincerity of the hon. Member's arguments, but we are still in a—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. It is not in order for an hon. Member to read a newspaper in the Chamber.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire referred to the aircraft carrier. I remind the House that the shipyards in Belfast, which today employ 12,000 men, have been one of the main yards in which our defence requirements have been met. In the past ten years, they have built two Type 12 frigates, 12 coastal minesweepers, a guided missile destroyer, an assault ship, a Fleet replenishment ship and three of the last four aircraft carriers. We are dependent upon this type of defence work in Northern Ireland.
I feel that the Government are entitled to use defence expenditure in an area of high unemployment such as Northern Ireland to prime the pump. I regret very


much that the Defence White Paper has not given us a better lead on this subject.
Short Brothers and Harland have been mentioned. Although we welcome the schemes to diversify Short Brothers and Harland, bringing in the electronic machine tool industry, I ask the Government to look again at the suggestions concerning our aircraft requirements and see that we do not sell out our aircraft industry entirely to the United States. We need immediate defence orders to replace the work which was lost on the HS681.
I regret that I cannot develop these arguments at greater length—[HON. MEMBERS: "Carry on."]—but I ask the Government Front Bench, in spite of the brevity of my remarks, to pay particular attention to them and to look particularly again at these vital defence industries and also the maintenance establishments, the naval yard at Sydenham and the R.E.M.E. workshop at Kinegar and see whether more work can be put into Northern Ireland, where there is the labour and where we need it.

MOTION TO ADJOURN DEBATE

9.42 a.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move,
That the debate be now adjourned.
I move this Motion to save what is technically, I understand, tomorrow's business, but if I describe it as Friday's business I shall be quite clear. I fully understand, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends, the importance of the Consolidated Fund Bill and the importance of preserving private Members' rights. This is an important and traditional occasion. That is why I move the Motion in this form.
I am not moving the Closure. I am moving that consideration of the Bill be adjourned because there is no reason whatever why we should not spend the whole of Monday night continuing the debate on the Bill. I understand that it has to reach another place on Tuesday, but there is no reason why we should not have another 12 hours, if need be, listening to the sustained eloquence of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) all through the night watches of Monday night. If the Motion

is accepted, it will preserve Friday's business and it will preserve the rights of private Members to continue raising the large number of topics which are listed for debate on the Bill.
It is being suggested that the behaviour of hon. Members on the Government benches is a squalid and sordid abuse of Parliamentary procedure. I read—with, of course, regret and distaste—in the Daily Express of Friday, 26th March—

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Did you not rule a few moments ago, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it was out of order for an hon. Member to read a newspaper in the Chamber—[interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. I must hear the hon. and learned Member's point of order. I have not heard it yet.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is that only a few moments ago you ruled as a matter of procedure that it was out of order for an hon. Member to read a newspaper in the House, and I assume that that applies also to a right hon. Member. The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) is about to read a newspaper in the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. What I was calling the House's attention to earlier was quite a different matter from using a newspaper and a quotation from a newspaper as part of an argument in debate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to this debate as a squalid abuse of Parliamentary procedure. May I point out to you, Sir, that the debate that we have just concluded was initiated by hon. Members from Northern Ireland? Is this not a reflection on the Members for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is not being as accurate as usual. I did not say anything of the sort. I said that it is being represented, but I am very anxious to protect the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends from what is being said about them. I was about to quote, not to read for


pleasure, because it gives me no pleasure to read this:
By midnight Labour Party Whips—acting in a strictly unofficial capacity—had taken over from the Syndicate the job of organising the filibuster.
Labour M.P.s were put on rota duty to
ensure that there were always sufficient M.P.s on hand to forestall Tories 'counting the House out'…
Forty M.P.s must be in the Chamber
all the time. But the suggestion in the newspaper is that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members on the Front Bench have taken over from the Syndicate the job of organising the filibuster. Not being content with debauching the Order Paper of the House of Commons at Question Time, now the Syndicate is at work.
I want to know what are the intentions of the Government with regard to this matter, and I want to ask them to say quite clearly whether they are prepared to protect Friday's business. The reason we want, in fact, to protect Friday's business is that we think there is an important Measure which should be given a Second Reading discussion. The classes of persons whom the Bill is designed to benefit, as set out in the Schedule, are persons who, on account of their age when the National Insurance Act, 1946—

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I cannot see the right hon. Gentleman. Would you adjust the blinds?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that those who are responsible for pulling down the blinds will protect the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I can see the hon. Gentleman very awake, bright, zestful in the interests of Private Members and of the House, and very anxious, I am sure, to play his full part in discussing this matter, which is to benefit people who, when the National Insurance Act, 1946, came into operation—

The Paymaster-General (Mr. George Wigg): On a point of order. Though the hon. Gentleman's eyes may be blinded, is it not possible—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to put to the Chair a point of order. I must hear him.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Sir. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill in referring to legislation, particularly future legislation? I should have thought that that was out of order.

Sir Herbert Butcher: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is not my right hon. and learned Friend, in seeking to move the Adjournment of the House, entitled to produce reasons why he seeks to do that?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the reference to future legislation was in a form which would preclude it from being mentioned in this dilatory Motion.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: What is the right hon. Gentleman so frightened of? Why is every kind of procedural device—blinds being drawn and all the rest of it—being produced in order to prevent a reference to my hon. Friend's Bill, which will involve benefit to people whom I think every Member of this House would wish to see benefited, if it could be done. I quite see, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, obviously, one has to consider whether the bill can be paid—the bill can be met. That is what we want to discuss. Why this deliberate attempt to prevent it from being discussed?
It is not as though this had been entirely a private Members' fiesta. The Minister of Housing and Local Government spoke for 70 minutes on this Private Members' occasion; the Minister of State, Board of Trade, spoke for 41 minutes; the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport spoke for 39 minutes. This, I think, is one of the reasons why it can well be that the writer of that passage in the Daily Express was right—that this is a deliberate attempt by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to see that my hon. Friend's Bill is not discussed.
What we want to know is what are the Government's intentions. We hope the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply will be able to tell us, as we hope, that he will be able to get to other activities tomorrow. At all events, as far as Monday's business is concerned, we will certainly co-operate.

Mr. Robert Edwards: On a point of order. The right hon. and learned Member has not yet received permission to move the Motion. Is he not out of order in debating it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The fact that I am listening to him means I have given permission.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Again, why is the hon. Gentleman so frightened? Because this is a deliberate attempt to prevent my hon. Friend's Bill from being discussed.

Mr. Robert Edwards: There have been 13 years for it.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: If the hon. Member has waited 13 years for it why not permit it to be debated now? He is lending force to my argument.
I fully understand the importance of preserving private Members' rights, and I say that so far as Monday's business is concerned we will do everything we can to help. Let us have further debate of all these matters listed on the list debated throughout the night watches of Monday, but let us get on to Friday's business, and the very important Measure of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Wigg: For sheer, unadulterated impudence the speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] For sheer brass and impudence the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) takes the biscuit. He has the brazen impertinence to come to this House and quote from the front page of the Daily Express—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—No reason why he should not, but I am going to refer to it. Late last night we had one of those histrionic prima donna displays we are used to from the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). Having shown his respect for the House of Commons, having captured the banner headline in the Daily Express, he then made his dramatic exit: he is out. Having had a good night's sleep and having briefed the Daily Express he comes back here this morning and—

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. and learned Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Free speech?"]—The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral then comes down and quotes from the Daily Express as obiter dicta. I will give way in a moment, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to learn something. He may just as well learn it from me.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Sir D. Glover: The Paymaster-General ought to go back to school.

Mr. Wigg: I am going to try to give right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite a lesson. The penny which has not dropped is that they lost the last election, and they no longer control the business of this House. The function of Government is to control the agenda and to control the timetable, and my right hon. Friends do control the House of Commons and they are going to control the timetable. Let this one sink home—right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are out; they are out and they are going to stay out for a considerable time.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Wigg: In a moment. This is only the first part of the lesson. I have been in the House as long as the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral, maybe too long for some hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I shall be here after a number of them have departed. I have seen them come and go.
What the Conservative Party lacks at the moment is somebody with the genius of the late Earl Winterton. He knew this House and he loved it. I often had talks with him and corresponded with him, and I learned an enormous lot from him. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would only go back and read the 1945 editions of HANSARD and learn not from us but from the late Lord Winterton, they would be much more efficient Parliamentarians than they are.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Wigg: In a moment—

Mr. A. R. Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it possible to relate the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Motion before the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that is exactly the kind of thing about which I complain. If the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) would only take a beginner's correspondence course in Parliamentary procedure, he could do better than that. There are 100 hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who could give him some lessons. But I am most anxious—

Mr. James A. Kilfedder: Might I tell the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I am grateful for giving way, that I am a very new Member of this House, having been here only about 5½ months. I came back from my constituency last night, arriving here at 1 o'clock this morning, to take part in the debate on Northern Ireland, but I also came here to support the Pensions (Amendment) Bill which is due to be discussed later this morning. The point is—I put this to the right hon. Gentleman—that there are a great number of unemployed people in Northern Ireland who know what it is to do without things, but they would be the first people who would wish the Pensions (Amendment) Bill to be debated today. I hope that, without making any party point at all, the right hon. Gentleman will allow the debate on that Bill to commence at 11 a.m.

Mr. Wigg: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. He has been here only 5½ months. He still has a great deal to learn. The debate on Northern Ireland has been stopped not by this side of the House but by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as I am advised, pressure was brought to bear on Northern Ireland Members to curtail their speeches?

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Wigg: One at a time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must learn to take his place. He must learn—

Mr. Hogg: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is afraid to give way, is he not?

Sir H. Butcher: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it will be within the recollection of the House that the Paymaster-General said that the debate on Northern Ireland had been stopped. May I elicit, on a point of order, your guidance for the House. Surely the debate on Northern Ireland has not been stopped. Surely it can be taken up again should the Motion proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) be carried by the House.

Mr. Wigg: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The answer is purely factual. This dilatory Motion is an intervention in the major debate.

Mr. Wigg: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I stand by the fact that the debate on Northern Ireland has been stopped by a dilatory Motion. We have stopped in order to debate the Motion for the Adjournment.

Sir H. Butcher: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know this. Is it not a fact that the debate on Northern Ireland has been interrupted and not stopped?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has raised a question not of order but of semantics. The debate has ceased to exist for the time being.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I do not agree that it is a question of semantics. It is a question of fact. I presume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was honest when he asked the House to agree to an adjournment of the debate. If he was honest and sincere in his utterance and his Motion were carried, that would have stopped the Northern Ireland debate.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that he came here at one o'clock, which is very much more than the majority of hon. Members opposite did, in order to take part in a debate. That debate was going on quite smoothly until the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) went round the benches and spoke to his hon. Friends and urged them not to speak, or to curtail their remarks. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We have eyes to see. The first lesson which right hon. Gentlemen opposite must learn is to respect the House.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I did not ask my hon. Friends to curtail their remarks. Nothing of the kind occurred. No pressure was put on any Northern Ireland Member. Furthermore, the object of the Motion is that the debate on Northern Ireland. which is very important, should be continued on Monday.

Mr. Wigg: All right. The hon. Gentleman went round to each of his hon. Friends not to urge them to curtail their remarks, but to wish them good morning. I say the same to him.

Mr. Anthony Barber: You, too, good morning.

Mr. Wigg: Here is another example of Tory good manners. Hon. Members opposite will not learn respect for the House. The other point that does not sink home is that they think that they have a God-given right to use the rules of order as it suits them, but when somebody does it back, they do not like it. I have always thought that this was a characteristic of the English ruling classes. This is why they like fox hunting. It is sport to hunt the fox but the fox cannot hunt them.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Wigg: In a moment. They hunt the fox and they use the rules of order. They think that they can do what they like, but when some of my hon. Friends, a bit more studious and a bit more competent, use the procedures of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Abuse."]—we will come to that in a moment—hon. Members opposite object and imagine that it is a crime against the Holy Ghost.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I wanted to remind the right hon. Gentleman, as he speaks for the Leader of the House, that he repeatedly asked me from his former customary place below the Gangway to treat matters not as a party politician but realising that as Leader of the House I spoke for the whole House. I recommend that to him.

Mr. Wigg: I only wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken that advice. The one thing he never did

was to act other than as a party politician when he was Leader of the House.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Then how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with the very handsome tribute which he paid to me as Leader of the House?

Mr. Wigg: I paid a tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I meant every word of it. By comparison with the rest—[Interruption.]—he was good, but that does not mean to say that he ranked other than what he was. He was using the rules of order, and he used the procedures of the House.
Let us examine the complaint made by right hon. Gentlemen. The complaint is that on the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill hon. Members on this side of the House have used the rules improperly. Let us examine the facts. The first subject which was put down for debate was put down in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), a Conservative Member. The second one was put down in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). We all know him. Having put it down for debate, and having, presumably, in accordance with the traditions of the House given notice to the Department that he had done so, he had not the courtesy to get up and move it, although he was in the House all night.

Mr. Robert Cooke: If the right hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber all the evening he would have heard my explanation to the House. He would have heard me give the reason why I did not rise in my place at the appointed time. I explained that I did not want the subject which I had put down for debate to be used as a device by both the Front Bench and the back benches opposite to prolong the proceedings and cancel today's business. If the right hon. Gentleman had been paying attention to the debates through the night instead of preparing these remarks he might have done better.

Mr. Wigg: I was here all night. The hon. Gentleman put down the second subject for debate. He knew the procedure of the House. He knew that this was an historic occasion. He knew that it was the right of a back bencher to take


the opportunity of raising the matter that he had put down for discussion. He was the second Conservative taking advantage of our procedure. Nobody complained about it, but, when he found that having put it down it was inconvenient politically and party-wise to move it, he withdrew it. In other words, he did exactly what he complains my hon. Friends have done. Whatever one may think about it, it gets perilously near to a charge of hypocrisy for the hon. Gentleman to charge us with what he has done himself.
What was the third subject for debate? Where did that come from? It was put down by the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner). The fourth subject was selected by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), another Conservative. This was obviously a filibuster, because the hon. Member who put this one down was not in the House to move it. He only came in later and intervened. The fifth subject was chosen by a Labour Member—that is not a bad ration, one in five. What was the sixth one? It was selected by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd). That meant that we had one out of six. What was the next one? This is where we have got to. This was selected by the hon. Member for Londonderry, so hon. Members on this side have had one out of the lot, and hon. Gentlemen opposite complain.
This has been an orderly debate, and on the occasion last year when the—

Mr. T. W. Urwin: My right hon. Friend says that it has been a nice, quiet debate. I should like him to take note of the fact that it could not have been other than nice and quiet because nobody has been present on the benches opposite.

Mr. Wigg: Exactly. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, having given notice in respect of the majority of the subjects to be raised, and having, presumably, given notice to the Departments and to the Ministers concerned, busy men that they are, they spent the night waiting for their turns to come. Then one did not ask the House to discuss the subject he had chosen, a second one came in when the debate on the subject chosen by him was

half way through, and now they come down here and complain.
Of course the opportunities for private Members are few. Again, Private Members' Bills are a lottery. It is a question of chance. Hon. Members may have excellent Bills to put forward, but if they do not draw a high place in the Ballot they do not get a chance to introduce them. This is a matter of luck. But Private Members' Bills do not take precedence over the historic right of back benchers to use occasions like the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill to take advantage of the opportunity which is given to them.
Hon. Members opposite have no reason to complain. Only a handful have been here during the course of the night. Their only contributions to our deliberations, until we reached the constituency point of Londonderry was to call 10 Counts. They were called for no other reason than to inconvenience hon. Members on this side of the House. Notice has been given to Ministers, and the debates have been continuous. A theme has run through them, and they have required and have obtained from Ministers reasoned replies. Why in the name of goodness hon. Members opposite should imagine that because, for party political reasons, when one of their hon. Friends draws a place high in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills and wants to bring a Bill before the House—a Bill which could have been passed by the Tory Government at any time in the last 13 years—this gives them precedence over the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill, I do not know. It passes understanding, except for the reason that I gave when I began—that they think they are God's anointed. They think that they have the right to rule, and that the rest of us are merely servants. This is the essence of Tory philosophy. It is born of arrogance—

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: On a point of order. Can you tell the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, how much longer the right hon. Gentleman has to continue to speak in order to prevent our debating the Bill that we have been waiting for, which is designed to pay pensions to people whose average age is 84?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Wigg: There we go again. The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) seizes his opportunity. Now is his chance. The obedient hordes have come back and are in their places, and he can get a cheer because he is an outside runner for the leadership of the party. He has the opportunity for an early morning canter in the Succession Stakes. He hopes that it is a fiat race, otherwise he will fall at the first fence.

Mr. Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) has to learn to take his place.

Mr. Anthony Fell: rose—

Mr. Wigg: In a moment—when I am ready. Hon. Members opposite chided me with making a speech in my own time. Why should I not do so? The right hon. and learned Member has chosen his time for an early morning canter in the Succession Stakes. I have exposed his remarks for the humbug they are, and now the hon. Member wants me—

Mr. Higgins: rose—

Mr. Wigg: One at a time. That one over there.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Sir H. Butcher: On a point of order. Is there not a requirement for all hon. and right hon. Members to conduct proceedings in this House by means of speech, and not by means of dumb show?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the right hon. Member who is addressing the House does not give way, hon. Members must not persist in interrupting.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. I distinctly heard the right hon. Member, who claims to respect the House, refer to one of my hon. Friends as "that one over there". Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members must be referred to as such.

Mr. Wigg: rose—

Mr. Higgins: On a point of order. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is referring to me. My constituency is Worthing. As he was referring to me and was inviting me to reply, my point—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not seem to be a point of order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Wigg: No, we must be fair—one at a time. We are dealing first of all with the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). His complaint is that I have replied to his right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Wirral. I propose to reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for as long as I wish in the manner I think is right.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Wigg: Do sit down. Do learn to sit still and listen. The hon. Gentleman is complaining because I am making my speech in my own way. Certainly I am going to do it and no amount of shouting me down is going to stop me.
What I am pointing out is that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral came down here and complained without any justification at all because my hon. Friends have spoken, and spoken constructively, and have had constructive replies from the Government, on subjects not chosen by them, but on subjects chosen by hon. Members opposite. What in the name of goodness is there to complain about in that? Except one thing. That right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think they can come to this House and use it as they like without regard to the rights of other hon. Members. They want to forget it, but they are not going to do it.

Mr. Fell: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I ask him this question? He has, in fact, been about as rude as I have ever heard a right hon. Gentleman be in this House to hon. Members on this side. When he said earlier that this was a perfectly normal debate, I would like him to tell me whether he has ever sat in a debate—and he was not here when this happened last night—when three speeches running concurrently took a total time of 179 minutes?

Mr. Wigg: Hon. Gentlemen can judge for themselves what is worse, for hon. Gentlemen on this side to come to the House and speak on subjects chosen by hon. Gentlemen—

Mr. Fell: rose—

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman asked a question and complains about my rudeness. He must not give me that example, otherwise I will be worse than I am. The only difference between us is that when I am rude I am trying to be, and when he is rude he cannot help it. In my parliamentary life I learned one simple thing. I give hon. Gentlemen back exactly what they try to give me, with compound interest.
The hon. Member for Yarmouth and other hon. Gentlemen come to the House and complain because hon. Gentlemen on this side—

Mr. Arthur Tiley: rose—

Mr. Wigg: They complain because my hon. Friends, on a Motion chosen by a Conservative, speak and get a reply from the Government. What did the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) do? He did not even give his own side notice. He should examine this. Some of us do our homework. He complains of actions by my hon. Friends, but before he casts a stone at them he should look at himself.

Mr. Fell: rose—

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member must take his turn.

Mr. Fell: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) must resume his seat.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member for Yarmouth thinks that he has not had a fair ration. He can come back in a moment, but now it is the turn of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery).

Mr. Emery: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way.
I support the right hon. Gentleman in everything he said about trying to defend the rights of private Members and the general history of the House, May I ask him two questions? When the House is

in the difficulty which it appears to be in at present, may we ask where the Leader of the House is? Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to ask the Leader of the House, who I now see behind Mr. Speaker's chair, to come into the Chamber and sit on the Front Bench, because it appears that the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General is speaking in the place of the Leader of the House? It is private Members and not the Government that we are concerned about.
I see that the Leader of the House has taken his place on the Front Bench. I welcome him. It is a pity that he was not here earlier. The Paymaster-General, who has been speaking for the Leader of the House, should note that it appears necessary for the first time since 1951 to stop a Private Member's Bill on a Friday. This has not been done since 1951. It seems that when somebody respects the heritage of the House—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This is an intervention, not a speech.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) may not make a speech on an intervention. Mr. Wigg.

Mr. Emery: On a point of order. I have been attempting to put two questions to the right hon. Gentleman. I put the first question, but there was so much interference from the Government that I was unable to put the second. I had not given way and I claim that at that moment I had the Floor.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have called the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he was making a speech and not an intervention. Mr. Wigg.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: On a point of order. When my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) was making two quite short points confusion was caused by our wondering whether the Leader of the House would have the courage to come into the discussion in the House. This caused so much interference —

Mr. William Hamilton: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Kershaw: At that point the Paymaster-General, in a disorderly fashion, stood up at the Box.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That does not raise a point of order. Mr. Wigg.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Mr. Wigg: This is another exhibition, another illustration, of the arrogant Tory attitude. If the hon. Member for, I think, Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) were spoken to by one of his hon. Friends, and charged with lack of courage, he would resent it. That is not the language which is used in his circle between social equals. He only uses that sort of remark to us because, again, he imagines that he has a God-given right to do exactly what he likes, to say what he likes, in the way he likes, when he likes, and to be as offensive as he likes.
As far as I am concerned, I repudiate his standards. He knows what I think about him; I hope that he thinks the same about me, because I could imagine no greater compliment. Again, I would point out that he has never been here all night, and neither has his hon. Friend the Member for Reading. All they want to do is to use private Members' time for party political purposes, and they have been put down, not by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, but by their own hon. Friends. That is the standard of confidence which one gets from the Tory Front Bench.
The Chief Patronage Secretary—we all know him, a kindly fellow, but a natural incompetent—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wigg: Yes, yes. Having been up 24 hours, I am guilty of a slip of the tongue. Hon. Members can have all the fun they like from that. They know who I mean; they know where the cap fits.
The Opposition Chief Whip has been running around like a scalded cat all night, trying to find out a way of putting right his own hon. Friends. If we wanted a good example —

Mr. Fell: rose—

Mr. Wigg: In a moment.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wigg: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Yarmouth. He has had one turn. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has been here all night."] He shall have his turn.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise that their hon. Friends have put down no less than 10 subjects. What about those of my hon. Friends who have been here all night—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] What about my hon. Friends who have been waiting to answer them? Why should hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, monopolise the whole of the time, when my hon. Friends, who have been here all night and want to put constituency cases, are not allowed to do so?
Of course, if they want the best example of all, let us take the debate which has now been stopped—or interrupted, as hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to call it—on Northern Ireland. Obviously, this is a very important subject for Northern Ireland Members. They have something to hide, and they think that attack is the best means of defence. Therefore, as soon as it is a constituency matter of some importance, as soon as the time comes when they can be sure that it will reach the headlines in the Belfast newspapers, we have a speaker from the Tory Front Bench who is backed up by two or three of his hon. Friends who also want to speak.
This is a right—a right which I applaud. I approve of this; that is what the Consolidated Fund Bill is for, and it has been used on occasion after occasion, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have moved the Closure, and their Chief Whip, time and time again, has closured by hon. Friends and terminated the discussion.
Why, in heaven's name, should hon. Gentlemen opposite think that this is a vital constituency matter for Northern Ireland, when some of my hon. Friends are debarred from having the same right?

Mr. Fell: In answering a question which I asked him, the right hon. Gentleman accused me of not having informed a Government Department—or whoever he meant; I am not quite sure—when I raised a matter on the Adjournment. I should be very grateful if he would substantiate that, and tell me


precisely how he found out—if it is true at all—because I certainly do not remember.

Mr. Wigg: I read the OFFICIAL REPORT of 29th July, 1964, containing the debate on the common seal. The hon. Member intervened in that debate.

Mr. Fell: That was at night.

Mr. Wigg: At 9.30 in the morning. At 8.40 in the morning the hon. Member came to the House and raised a subject which appeals to many people, the protection of the common seal. He had not given notice. He apologised for the fact that there would be no Minister present to reply and, in fact, the Minister responsible did not reply. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) came as well and made his contribution.

Mr. Fell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? May I just explain? I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will now withdraw the accusation, in view of the fact that this shooting of seals was mentioned in the newspapers on the very morning of the debate.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman again misunderstands. He must read my child's guide. I have no objection whatever to his coming here and raising the question of the protection of the common seal, and the same applies to his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. The hon. Member for Bristol, West made a very moving speech.
If the hon. Member comes to the House and raises a subject which appeals to him, and is of importance to his constituency, why does he deny the same right to my hon. Friends? My hon. Friends, in accordance with the courtesies of the House, have given notice to the Minister and they have had reasoned replies. But the hon. Member for Yarmouth did not even think that that was worth while. I make no complaint about it. I just regard it as a fact that hon. Members opposite have one standard for themselves and another for us. Personally, I do not play it that way.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for the Western

Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) has a grievance? If he had known that the question of grey seals was to be raised he would have been here to speak in their protection, but he did not receive notice.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: If my right hon. Friend looks back into HANSARD he will observe that I preceded the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Fell), who had been in the House all night and who had received information from his own Chief Whip that if I did not curtail my speech the debate would be closured and he would not have a chance to get in. I did curtail my own speech and the hon. Member got in on the subject.

Mr. Fell: What does this mean?

Mr. Wigg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely puzzled and he will remain puzzled, as will the hon. Member for Bristol, West, unless the penny drops and he gets into his mind that hon. Members on this side of the House have exactly the same rights, no more and no less, than hon. Members opposite.
What happened yesterday and what has happened today is quite simple. There is a conflict of private Members' interests. The Consolidated Fund historically takes precedence. Hon. Members may give notice of the subjects they want to raise so that other hon. Members in all parts of the House, if they wish, can come and take part in the debate. That is what this House is about. It is argument, debate, cut and thrust, so that the truth may emerge. It is not a machine to secure for ever and ever the dominance of the Tory Party. This is something that hon. Members opposite have not grasped. They have lost the election. The control of the House of Commons has passed from them.
I can tell by the puzzled look on the face of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral—and there is no more kindly Member in this House—that he has again been jockeyed into a position which he now realises is acutely embarrassing. He did not realise that the hon. Member for Oxford had the first subject and that there are 10 subjects which have been put down by hon. Members opposite. He does not seem to realise that


there are a number of other subjects in which hon. Members on this side of the House are interested. They are important subjects. There are other Private Members' Bills besides that which interests hon. Members opposite. But that is the luck of the draw. They have lost, and hon. Members who will not be able to raise the subject today will also have lost.
Hon. Members opposite have tried to monopolise Friday's business. They have tried to monopolise Thursday's business. They have made a hash of it. They are incompetent and, absolutely true to form, they remain a stupid party.

10.37 a.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I do not want to detain the House for more than a very few minutes—

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman continues, may I point out that he has already spoken once in this debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Not on this Motion.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has been giving us lessons in procedure for so long that he ought to have learned some lessons himself. The right hon. Gentleman was, I think, right in his reference to fox hunting. Fox hunting has been defined as "the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable". The right hon. Gentleman has been the unspeakable ceaselessly and interminably elaborating the unarguable. He has, in fact, proved himself as insolent and as arrogant in power as he was offensive when in Opposition.

Mr. A. Woodburn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am not clear what is happening. I understood that any hon. Member was entitled to speak only once in this debate. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) delivered a very vehement speech last evening. I should like to know what the position is.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman apparently did not hear me a few minutes ago when I said that the

right hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled to speak on this Motion.

Mr. Hogg: I was only saying that after my right hon. and learned Friend had moved this Motion with marked good humour, the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General behaved with the same insolence and arrogance in power as he showed offensiveness when in opposition. He is evidently employed by the Government. We were in some doubt about what he is employed for, but it is now apparent what he is employed for. He is employed by the Government to take the place of the Leader of the House, who, if he had any self-respect, would resign at the humiliation to which he has been subjected.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert W. Bowden): Is the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) at the moment taking the place of the shadow Leader of the House?

Mr. Hogg: I am supporting my right hon. and learned Friend. The Paymaster-General is employed to take his right hon. Friend's place when something is put down on the Order Paper which is not quite reputable enough for the Leader of the House to undertake. He is, in fact, the Odd-Job of this Gold-finger outfit. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that there was a clash between private Members' interests in this matter. There is no such clash. My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that Private Members' time could be fully satisfied in respect of both sets of business if the Leader of the House would only agree to sit on Monday night as well as last night.
I say this only to assist the Paymaster-General. He began my saying that I had made a histrionic gesture last night. I walked out of the House because I did not like the degradation of Parliament by the Government. [Interruption.] What is sauce for the Government goose is sauce for the Opposition gander. I did not like to see the degradation of Parliament by the right hon. Gentleman. What we have witnessed, and what we seek now to prevent him having the fruits of, is one of the most contemptible and despicable devices ever seen this side of the Atlantic. It is done for one


motive only—to prevent the discussion of some other business, which might help some of the most helpless and poverty-stricken members of the community, whose sufferings right hon. and hon. Members opposite have exploited for years and whom they have now betrayed.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: On a point of order. As the right hon. Gentleman has refused to accept my Motion and has shown the clear intention of the Government to prevent discussion of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: Before the Motion is withdrawn, may we have an assurance that the Paymaster-General's speech has safeguarded the rights of back benchers on this debate on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill? The right hon. Gentleman said that there were many hon. Members who still had points to raise. Can we have an assurance that Ministers will reply at the same length to the debates on those matters? I myself want to speak in debate on railway facilities in East Anglia. Will the Leader of the House, in view of the Paymaster-General's speech, give an assurance that he will not closure that debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question is, "That the debate be now adjourned."

Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that, when a request is made for a Motion to be withdrawn, if it is not immediately accepted, or if there is any opposition at all, it falls and cannot subsequently be withdrawn? The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison), by continuing the debate—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It does not fall to the ground, but it cannot now be withdrawn.

10.44 a.m.

Mr. William Warbey: As this is a debate about private Members' rights, it would be appropriate if at least one or two private Members had the

opportunity of saying why we think this debate should be continued and not adjourned. I happen to be one of those Members on the back benches—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will allow me to hear what is being addressed to me.

Mr. Warbey: I was saying that as a back bencher I am concerned, like my right hon. Friend, but unlike right hon. and hon. Members opposite, to ensure that back benchers' rights are preserved on one of the few occasions when we have the opportunity to raise matters which affect our constituents' interests. I have been here for a number of hours in order to raise the subject of the coal industry. The coal industry is one which affects not only my constituency but the whole country. Whether this country continues to obtain an adequate supply of coal and continues to provide a livelihood for the men engaged in the industry—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can address himself at present only to the Motion before the House, "That the debate be now adjourned." He cannot discuss the coal industry.

Mr. Warbey: I appreciate that. I was merely seeking to indicate why I considered, together with most of my hon. Friends, that the Motion, if not withdrawn, anyhow should be opposed. It is of the greatest importance that the debate on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill should continue, so that hon. Members like myself who have come here for the purpose of discussing the problems of their constituencies should have the opportunity of doing so. I was saying—I think I am in order—

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for hon. Members to carry on conversations in the passageway of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must call the attention of the hon. Member concerned to the fact that it is not in order. He should be seated in the House.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I draw to the attention of the Opposition Chief Whip the direction you have now given to my hon. Friends?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman concerned was outside the House and speaking to somebody in it.

Mr. Warbey: I was saying, before we had interruptions from hon. Members opposite, that the purpose for which I and other hon. Members on this side came here last night and today was to raise problems which affect our constituencies. We wish to have that opportunity. We wish to raise a large number of subjects still which are on the paper which has been circulated and most of which have not yet even been reached. The subject which I wish to raise is that of the coal industry. The coal industry is No. 22 on the list. I understand that so far we have reached only No. 7 or No. 8.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Some have been withdrawn.

Mr. Warbey: Some may have been withdrawn. Perhaps if I wait for another three or four hours I may have an opportunity of speaking about the coal industry. Unfortunately, my constituents are claiming my attention this evening and I, like other hon. Members, have a problem. I have a problem of either speaking about the coal industry in this debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill or of denying to my constituents later in the day the opportunity of obtaining advice from me on their particular and individual problems. If the Motion were carried, I should be deprived of the opportunity of speaking on the coal industry. Because the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has chosen to move the Motion to interrupt and hold up this debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, we are now in the position that we have lost over an hour of the debate.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. Can you assist me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on whether it would be in order for me, in the absence of Mr. Speaker, to move, "That the Question be now put"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am unable to accept that Motion.

Mr. Warbey: I was saying that the action of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in moving the Motion has already resulted in the loss of over one hour of

private Members' time on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Sir H. Harrison: I think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There has been no loss of time. There is no limit to this debate. It can go on as long as the Patronage Secretary is not closuring it.

Mr. Warbey: That is perfectly true. I concede that point. I am quite sure that my hon. Friends here will be quite prepared to carry on the debate for as long as is necessary to give them the opportunity which they are seeking to raise the problems of their constituencies. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite by their tactics during the night and this morning have been trying to rob us of the opportunity. As a result of this loss of time, some of us will be in the extremely difficult position that we cannot find it possible to stay for the conclusion of the debate in order to raise matters of which we have given notice.
I hope, therefore, that the House will quickly resume the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill so that my hon. Friends will have the opportunity which they are seeking. I do not intend to delay matters any longer, but I insist, however, that the Closure must either be withdrawn in the interests of all hon. Members, or, if not, the other hon. Members should have the opportunity of doing what they came here to do, and that is to deal with the many problems which are listed on the papers that have been circulated.
There are other matters which I would have liked to raise besides the problem of the coal industry. There are other burning issues to which Ministers are entitled to give answers to the House on the questions that we put to them. There are problems not only affecting the Minister of Power but affecting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, both of whom I see in their places ready to answer such questions. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is here ready to answer questions. There are other Ministers who are ready to come to the House and who are waiting to answer our questions.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend has omitted to mention the Secretary of State for Scotland. Scottish Ministers are here waiting to answer the grievances of Scotland.

Mr. Warbey: I could list many others who are only too eager to come to the House in their turn and answer the questions which we want to put to them about our constituency problems. If we were to do that we could take up the whole time of the House for the rest of the day, and we would be very happy to do so.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend says that there are a number of points which he and my hon. Friends could have put. Is he aware that I have sat through the debate all night and, except for the presence of three hon. Members opposite, I have had to go over to the benches opposite to give them weight, in both senses of the word. Could not the whole question of the Annual Price Review have been raised? I am sure that my hon. Friend would have liked to have had a debate on that, because he has agricultural interests in his constituency.

Mr. Warbey: I am sure that there are many issues of such a character which we would have liked to debate and which could be debated if this Motion were withdrawn and we were given the opportunity. I am still waiting to hear from hon. and right hon. Members opposite that they are prepared to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Julian Snow: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) aware that, like him and all my hon. Friends here, I have been here all night? I have been trying to get an opportunity to speak on the fitting of artificial limbs to the baby victims of the thalidomide drug produced by capitalist drug companies, but I have not been allowed the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Hogg: I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) say that he would be glad to hear from my right hon. Friends that we would be prepared to withdraw the Motion. I understood, subject to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that that was exactly what had happened and that leave to do so had been refused from the benches opposite.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I said that the Motion could not now be withdrawn.

Mr. Warbey: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was wrong again. It is perfectly true that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who has now disappeared—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—indicated that he was willing to withdraw the Motion. He said that in a fit of pique. but his hon. Friends behind him would not let him do so. Unfortunately, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone and the Leader of hon. Members opposite, who has just gone out—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Which one?

Mr. Warbey: The shadow Leader. He and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone cannot keep their back benchers in order. I am very glad indeed to find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman for St. Marylebone, who has such a distinguished record of contending against all rivals in the Tory Party for the leadership of the party, should recognise that there are occasions when hon. Members on this side of the House have their differences of opinion.

Mr. Hogg: Hear, hear.

Mr. Warbey: When responsible hon. Members on the Front Bench invite us to take part in an action on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the party, we on this side of the House do so, whereas right hon. Gentlemen opposite are quite incapable of keeping the disorderly rabble behind them in order.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the exhibition initiated by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) for this last hour has been an exhibition of sheer, concentrated humbug. We have had during the last hour expressed to us what was said in the Daily Express, that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) stormed out of the Commons. I should like to tell the House that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order.

Mr. Bagier: Could I advise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is rather a lot of noise.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. Gentleman say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) was guilty of sheer, concentrated humbug. Is that term Parliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It is not Parliamentary and, if it was said, it must be withdrawn.

Mr. Bagier: I believe that my words—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will gladly hear the hon. Member on what he says he said, because I did not hear any of it. But if he said that, he must withdraw it.

Mr. Bagier: If it was accepted in that sense of the word, I withdraw it. But I believe that I referred to the whole exercise as an exhibition of concentrated humbug. I was referring to the fact, and asking my hon. Friend to agree—

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: Is it in order for the hon. Member to address the House with his hands in his pockets?

Mr. Speaker: I am not greatly impressed by appeals to the Chair on points of that kind. I doubt whether they add to our dignity.

Mr. Bagier: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that my hands have not been out of my pockets since half-past three.

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) had the Floor—I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, had just come into the Chair—and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) has now been talking for several minutes.

Mr. Speaker: There are various matters arising. I may have been living in a state of transitional circumstance. I have had no opportunity to judge the matter. As far as I could tell, on resuming the Chair, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) was in the course of making a speech, but on what point I am not yet quite clear.

Mr. Bagier: I was merely intervening—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have informed myself from authoritative quarters that I should be hearing the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey). I apologise in general for my ignorance and call the hon. Member for Ashfield.

Mr. Warbey: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, as I was in possession of the Floor of the House during this transitional phase.
As you came to the Chair there were a number of interruptions from one side of the House or the other which, perhaps, slightly confused the proceedings. However, I think that we were at the point when the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone was trying to explain how it came about that, after the right hon. and learned Member for the Wirral moved this dilatory Motion in order to hold up our proceedings, when he wished to withdraw it he was unsuccessful because of the behaviour of hon. Members behind him.
Now that we have made the position perfectly clear, and have also established that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone does not know what he is talking about, I will resume my seat in the hope that the debate will continue.

Mr. Bowden: We seem to have got ourselves into a procedural difficulty. I understand that about an hour ago the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), when I was not in the Chamber, moved, "That the debate be now adjourned." About a quarter of an hour ago, certainly in my presence, he endeavoured to withdraw the Motion so that we could get on with the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. But there was an objection. Apparently, no one did object, yet the word "object" was said from some part of the House.
The position now, as I see it, is that the House as a whole would wish that this Motion be withdrawn so that we can continue our debate on the Bill. If every Member remains seated and does not rise, is the Motion then put by you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It must be put by myself. If there is a matter of mishearing physically, it would, I think, be proper to renew the application of the right hon.


and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) to withdraw it. It is no good proceeding on a mishearing.

Mr. Hogg: Unless I am greatly mistaken, I distinctly heard the Paymaster-General object to my right hon. and learned Friend's Motion.

Mr. William Hamilton: That may well be so, but there were objections from the Opposition, too. The objection came from both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the simplest thing for me to do is to propose the Question.

11.6 a.m.

Sir H. Butcher: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the Motion before the House is "That the debate be now adjourned," I hope that before proposing the Question, or accepting a Motion that the Question be put without further debate, you, Mr. Speaker, will have an opportunity of hearing some of us about the advantages of accepting the Motion proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd).

Mr. Speaker: The Motion that we have been discussing, unless I have been plunged into confusion, is, "That the debate be now adjourned."

Sir H. Butcher: If I may, I should like to adduce reasons why the debate should now be adjourned. I suggest that it will be entirely for the convenience of all Members, particularly at this point of time. There was a great deal of reason, if I may say so, for accepting the proposal made by my right hon. and learned Friend. I, for my part, regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was not in his place at the time that that Motion was proposed. Let me say at once to the right hon. Gentleman—I know that he will accept it from me—that I have the greatest possible respect for him, both personally and in his capacity as Leader of the House. Perhaps he will allow me to say that with affection. He is in the proper tradition of Leaders of the House appointed by the Labour Party.
Some of us have been in the House for a long time. The Labour Party has

provided as Leaders of the House Sir Stafford Cripps, Lord Chuter-Ede, and our good friend the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth. However, I am bound to say to the right hon. Gentleman that at so early a stage, when he was close enough to the precincts of the House to allow a reply on a matter of this importance to be made—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Bowden: I will explain precisely what happened. I was at a meeting in Downing Street when I heard that the temperature in the House was rising, and I came over right away. I did not even know who was speaking.

Sir H. Butcher: I fully appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has grave difficulties, and I am equally certain that he has so high an opinion of this House that if he decides that his duties call him to Downing Street rather to here, the House will place the most charitable interpretation on his decision.
But the fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman is Leader of the House. If he is not here, and able to reply as Leader of the House, it is right that some other Minister should reply. The right hon. Gentleman chose that the reply should be made by the Paymaster-General. Some of us were here and we heard what he said. We heard him display an ignorance of procedure. It was a display of bad manners. We do not know why the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General was given a post in the Government except, of course, that every Prime Minister brings in "sheep" for slaughter in the early days—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The confines of the proposition that we are now discussing are well known to the hon. Gentleman. He must adhere to them.

Sir H. Butcher: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. You were not in the Chair during the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General—

Mr. Speaker: No, I was not, but I am here during the speech of the hon. Gentleman.

Sir H. Butcher: I apologise if I departed from my own knowledge of the procedure of the House and followed the bad example of about an hour ago.
I now return directly to the speech of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey). I listened to it with considerable care. I was not quite certain whether the hon. Gentleman wanted to talk now about the problems of the coal mines, or felt that could be more appropriately discussed on Monday. It seems to me, at this hour, that it is appropriate that the House should adjourn the debate so that hon. Members may take it up again on Monday. I hope that the House will resolve in that fashion.

11.13 a.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: What I proposed to say will be very short indeed. This House is controlled by the Government which plays its part only so long as the rights of the Opposition and back-bench Members are regarded. I do not think that happened last night. I should have voted against the hon. Member's Bill and I have written to a large number of my constituents to tell them. But I protest at the manner in which lie has been prevented—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell me whether we are debating the hon. Member's B11? I understood that you had told the right hon. Gentleman that we were on another question which had nothing to do with private Members.

Mr. Speaker: It is the proposition, "That the debate be now adjourned." I shall stop the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) if I think that he is out of order, but I do not think that he was.

Mr. Paget: I have not the smallest intention of discussing the hon. Member's Bill. All I am saying is that I deeply regret—I think the House and Parliament will regret it, and I think that the Government will in time—that this should have been used to frustrate private Members' time. It is something which we all ought to deplore.
It is, of course, perfectly possible for a debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill to go on indefinitely because people have real points which they want to make. That is not what happened. It continued in order to defeat a particular Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward Short): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: This relates to the dilatory Motion. The Question is, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. John Wells: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to take orders on an occasion like this from the Opposition Chief Whip?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Bogus points of order, with due respect, are no better during a Division than out of it.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: (seated and covered): Surely, Mr. Speaker, an hon. Member who makes an allegation of that kind against me should be required to withdraw? Will you persuade the hon. Member to do that?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know even with precision what the allegation was, except that the hon. Gentleman was supposed to be taking orders from somebody. That is quite a reputable thing to do in some circumstances.

Mr. Lubbock: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in that. He shall have all the proper protection from me, but I have duties to perform, like gathering the Tellers, and I cannot deal with things that are not points of order.
The Ayes have it.

Question, That the debate be now adjourned,put accordingly and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

11.18 a.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: May I, now that we are back to the Consolidated Fund Bill—

Hon. Members: We are not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There was a Closure Motion on the dilatory Motion. The Closure on the dilatory Motion has been accepted, so we come to the dilatory Motion, which is negatived at the


moment. Confusion is sometimes slightly promoted by sitting up all night. The sequence is that the Closure on the dilatory Motion was put to the House and was accepted. The dilatory Motion was then negatived. We are now back on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Mr. Emery.

Mr. Emery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) wishes to speak and I shall be only a few moments. But before the Leader of the House departs I wonder whether he would pay atention to me for a moment on this matter, because it is of considerable importance. The last time the House sat all night, and, therefore, we lost the next day's business, was on 11th March, 1954, and that was in Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman himself assisted me by pointing out that we are now discussing the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Emery: I realise that, Mr. Speaker, and as you will notice, I mentioned that the last time we were dealing with this was on Supply, dealing with the Army Estimates on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Because we are proceeding with the Consolidated Fund Bill I wonder whether if I might point out that as the Consolidated Fund Bill debate is continuing and as, because of the continuation of the debate, a day's business has been lost, which is private Members' business, then because of the debate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. The hon. Gentleman is not following. He has to conform to the rules of debate on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. He is not, apparently, addressing himself to that.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. Is not the salary of the Leader of the House, in another capacity, and the salaries of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury authorised to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund by the Bill which we are now discussing? Are not they those who are, in practice at any rate, held to be peculiarly responsible for the orderly proceedings of the House?

Mr. Speaker: That would be a better way of putting the point, but it was not the way it was being put to me.

Mr. Emery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Relating my arguments to this matter, would the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, in considering the matter of salaries, say whether it would not be possible for him to follow the example of the Opposition when we debated a matter on Supply in regard to the Army Estimates? There was at that time, again on Supply, a loss of a day of private Members' time. At that time the two Private Members' Bills, which were not then debated, were passed "on the nod" the following week. Would the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that that example could be applied, in order to defend the private Members' position? In other words, could he attempt to ensure that, as private Members' legislation at that time went to Committee, he would ensure that this could happen again with the private Members' legislation which has been lost?

DEFENCE POLICY (NORTHERN IRELAND)

11.24 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): You may not perhaps remember, Mr. Speaker, that an hour or two ago we were discussing some matters affecting Northern Ireland, and a number of points—

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of order. Having been here since the early afternoon yesterday—and as you will have heard from what the Under-Secretary has been saying, we appear now to be returning to the order of topics which we were discussing on the Consolidated Fund Bill—would I be correct in assuming that the debate will now follow its course and that hon. Members who have not been here all night will bide their time and come in later, after these topics have been discussed?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I should say something about this, lest the House be under an illusion. Purely for the convenience of the House, as far as it can be met—and for Ministers, too, who


wish to seek to reply to sections of discussions—the Chair works out a sort of list of what it expects the angle at which its eye will fall will be. It is not safe to make any assumption as to where the eye will fall at any time, but I think that we were doing a nautical exercise in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mallalieu: Not only a nautical exercise in Northern Ireland, but all kinds of matters in defence which affect the question of employment, Mr. Speaker. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if I deal with the points which have already been put. If any hon. Members still wish to address the House on constituency matters I will take the most careful note of them.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), like the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), made some reference to Short Bros. and Harland. As most hon. Members know, unless something is done by way of new work for this firm there will be a workload decline at the end of the year. I would like to say straight away that, whatever happens, there will be a considerable base-load of aircraft and guided weapons work still going on in the firm.
There is the production of Skyvans and some production still of Belfasts. So the company will, without any doubt, be able to honour its commitments. There is not the slightest danger that customers will be left high and dry without the industrial backing by way of the maintenance which they require. In the meantime, there is urgent need for new work for this firm, as has been pointed out many times before. The Ministry of Aviation is seeing whether any further aircraft contracts can be placed. Various Government Departments are now seeing what sub-contracting work could be put to the firm and, as the House knows, we are now preparing to send over a team of consultants to see what possible variations and expansions in the firm can take place into new projects.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the critical time is not within the next 12 months, but 18 months from now, bearing in mind the work on the HS681? That is the period about which we are particularly worried because the other diversification work, of

machine tools, and so on, could not possibly be done in time?

Mr. Mallalieu: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs will visit the firm next week and find out exactly what the position is at first hand.
The position at Harland and Wolff is that the firm is fairly busy now, doing about average of the rest of the United Kingdom. I was asked what its prospects were for the future. At present, in terms of defence contracts, we have the assault ship "Fearless", which, perhaps, will be completed early in 1966, there is the type 12 Leander, which is building for the New Zealand Government, and we have the fleet replenishment ship "Regent", building now. If and when tenders are put out for either the new carrier CVAO1 or further frigates Harland and Wolff will be able to tender for them. By our experience of the company, and based on its performance in the past, it will have a good chance of getting them. They are first-class shipbuilders.
The burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry was his fear about the possible removal of the joint anti-submarine school. I can only repeat what I said in the debate on the Navy Estimates; that there are technical arguments still going on about the rights and wrongs of the proposal to move the school. No decision has yet been made on these technical arguments in the Ministry of Defence and the final decision will not be taken on those technical points alone. The social and economic aspects must be considered and very close consultations will be had with the Home Secretary, who has vested in him some responsibility for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Ballakelly—that will not be affected at all. There will be some reduction if the J.A.S.S. does move, but that will be made good by a further squadron of Sunderlands and the level of activity at Ballykelly will remain fairly unchanged.
Reference was made to Aldergrove, which comes under R.A.F. Maintenance Command. Here, the picture in terms of employment is very much brighter. As the hon. Gentleman may know, since


1963 the numbers employed there have gone up from about 600 or so to just over 1,000—I think that the exact figure is 1,045. I am advised that this increase is likely to continue in the coming year.
I thought that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), amusing and witty as it was in parts, was also a very serious one. He made some extremely valid points. The Service Departments, will, of course, if they possibly can, put work to Northern Ireland, but, as everyone knows, that is not a very secure base for an economy.
I hope, and I have been hoping for years, that private enterprise, which has not taken advantage of the inducements that have been offered by the Northern Ireland Government to set up factories there, will show itself more enterprising than it has in the past. But I am also absolutely certain that one of the solutions of the problems, not only of Northern Ireland but of development areas everywhere, will be these advance factories—State enterprise coming in to make new products.
I simply do not believe that in Northern Ireland there is not the skill, managerial and otherwise, waiting to be used, and which could go into these factories to make such things as machine tools, which we have at present to get from abroad—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I cannot go along with the hon. Gentleman in his remarks about private enterprise not having taken advantage of the inducements offered by the Northern Ireland Government. I think that were he to consult his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, he might find that the Home Secretary was more in agreement with me than with him.

Mr. Mallalieu: Yes—I should correct myself and say that private enterprise has not come forward sufficiently to cut down the usual percentage of unemployment. I remember looking at these various areas where there was a high degree of unemployment: first, in 1945, before a Bill that was put through by the then Labour Government; later, in 1950, when another Bill came through; and then early in 1960. The unemployment percentages had hardly altered. They were still un-

bearably high, in spite of all the inducements offered. However, I hope that there will be no sort of dogma, no doctrinnaire approach to this State-enterprise idea. We are not dealing with dogmas at all, but with a very human problem—the problem of getting people some work.
I think that I have, in the most broad and general terms—after this long interruption—dealt with the main points raised during the debate, but I can give one further assurance to Northern Ireland. It is that we on this side feel—and I think that we share this feeling with hon. Members opposite—that if men and women, regardless of religious or political opinions, are able and willing to work, it is an absolute scandal if work cannot be found for them to do. That is something that we on this side are pledged to remedy as best we can.

Mr. McMaster: Before the Minister sits down, I should like him to deal with one short point that I made, as it is of particular concern to many of my colleagues. That is the point about the R.E.M.E. workshops at Kinegar and the naval air station at Sydenham. The R.E.M.E. workshop, in particular, is under serious threat of redundancy.

Mr. Mallalieu: It is certain that R.E.M.E. workshops throughout the United Kingdom are running down somewhat, because it is found much more economic to buy new vehicles rather than try to maintain older vehicles beyond their economic life. That is happening. not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he enlarge a little? I listened to the debate on the Science and Technology Bill, and I think that this is the first we have heard of positive steps to build advance factories for the production of machine tools anywhere, and particularly in Northern Ireland. Is that a Government announcement?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am sorry—that was an example of the kind of thing that could be done, not only by this Government but by the Government of Northern Ireland. The electronic field has openings, and machine tools most certainly have, and


those were the kind of things I was quoting as examples of what could be built with the engineering skill of Northern Ireland.

NATIONAL INSURANCE

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Airey Neave.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: rose—

Mr. Robert Woof: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that we are now on the continuation of the debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, and the next subject for debate in order on the list was regional development, to be introduced by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). Like the hon. Lady, I have been sitting on these benches all night—as a matter of fact, I have been here since 9 o'clock yesterday morning waiting for this subject to be introduced.
Might I ask why it is that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave)—and I am not complaining if he has not been here all night—is given this opportunity to talk about the Bill which he proposed to introduce, as against the subject of regional development which was supposed to be introduced by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth?

Dame Irene Ward: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has been here a lot, and I am gratified to see that she is still here. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) was here when, a moment ago, I explained the significance of the list of the order of topics. It does not commit, and cannot be regarded as committing, the Chair to look in any particular direction at all. It is merely introduced in so far as it can operate for the general convenience, but I am afraid that it is liable to all sorts of change at any time.

Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I purposely did not attempt to catch your eye, because after the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has been treated by the House I would prefer him to speak now. I am very glad, indeed, that he has caught your eye, and

I would not have minded had I sat for three days and nights if he had the opportunity to introduce his Bill. It is all very well for the hon. Member opposite to raise points of order but, surely, in this House it is for me to decide whether I stand or not. The hon. Gentleman cannot take that obligation on himself. I am perfectly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We seem to be getting a long way from points of order of genuine character, but no one doubts that the hon. Lady is wholly in control of her own movements—no one doubts that. But it must also be presumed that the hon. Gentleman is also, and what he is talking about is why, if he gets up, he is not allowed to do that, and the answer is that I have called Mr. Airey Neave.

11.39 a.m.

Mr. Neave: I am glad that the right hon. Lady the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is here to listen to me, and I am glad to have this opportunity to raise the subject of the pensionless people who were excluded from the National Insurance Scheme in 1948. The House, I am sure, is well aware of what has gone before. It knows that I had intended to introduce this matter in a very different form which it would be out of order for me to mention now. I am glad to have had considerable support, principally from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in regard to the manner in which I was excluded from raising the matter in legislative form.
It may be that I shall try to take other opportunities, but since this matter cannot wait, since these old people who were disqualified from National Insurance in 1948 are, for the most part over 80—the average age is nearly 84—and since, by the law of nature, they are growing older, I should like to hear from the right hon. Lady now what urgent action she intends to take about them. We have been told on several occasions that a general review of social security is taking place and that, eventually, some minimum income scheme or an arrangement of that kind will be introduced. But can these old people wait?
Since I talked about introducing a Bill in November last year, I have received more than 2,000 letters. I am


sorry to say that many of the writers have died since they first wrote to me. This shows the urgency of the situation and the need for the Government to take action. As I have said, it was my original purpose to do something about it in a different form.
One realises that most of these old people were disqualified because the Labour Government in 1948 decided that people who were over pensionable age and were not existing contributors or beneficiaries could not benefit under the National Insurance Scheme, and it is true that that policy was continued under the Conservative Government. One has heard the criticism that these reforms were not carried out during the years when the Conservatives were in power. I remind the right hon. Lady that the contributory principle was applied by the Labour Government when they excluded these old people in the first place, and it was followed by the Conservatives. Apparently, it is her policy now as regards paying them pensions out of the National Insurance Fund.
The right hon. Lady has said this in statements in the House. and it has been confirmed in letters which I have read from her and even from the Prime Minister, to the effect that it was not possible to pay these pensions without contribution. This has been the Ark of the Covenant of both parties, and it is a fact that, during the past 13 years when the last Government were in office, there was no record in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Labour Party criticising the Conservative Government on that account at all. The reason may be that, until last year, very few members of the public and, perhaps, few hon. Members were aware of the nature of the problem and its extent.
Of those disqualified on 5th July, 1948, 250,000 survive today. As I have said, I have received many letters from them and it is plain that they are suffering hardship. I do not deny that some of them have substantial means of their own, but they are suffering hardship which, quite clearly, was not envisaged in 1948. Times have changed for them. They are growing very much older. I have had letters from old ladies and gentlemen of over 90 and one from a lady of 100. They are persons whom the

Welfare State has left out. I do not deny that they have been left out by both parties, but this does not absolve those in office today of the responsibility of doing something soon. By "soon" I mean this year, as soon as possible. If I had been able to introduce legislation, I should have said within six months.
There are only 250,000 left, and the right hon. Lady's Department can, surely, find a means of paying them pensions. I do not suggest that she should pay fiat-rate retirement or widows' pensions, as the case might be, because I accept that she must take into account the contributory principle, but I am sure that she could find means of paying a pension which was reduced by the relevant amount of contribution which had either been paid partially by some people or not paid at all. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to find a means of doing it.
I have been told that the machinery is not possible, but, frankly, I do not believe it. The right hon. Lady could give a lot of reassurance to all these old people who have written to me and to her and who were awaiting a full-dress debate on the matter today. They were awaiting it with great interest, and it would be a help to them if the right hon. Lady would now say that she proposes to introduce plans which will directly benefit them.
It is clear that they have suffered hardship during the past few years. Most of them, I suppose, had savings in 1948. They come mostly from the professional classes. The right hon. Lady knows that, before 1948, there were people in certain excepted occupations under the voluntary pensions legislation and other pensions Measures, teachers, for instance, policemen and those in local government, and many are sadly affected today by their exclusion because they were above the pension age.
One of the difficulties of which the right hon. Lady will be aware from her Department—I acknowledge that the Department has helped me a good deal in this matter—is that it is not really possible, the present records not being adequate, to distinguish one category from another with great ease. Therefore, if she does decide to take action, people should apply for pensions so that she may assess the position.
I know that one difficulty which the hon. Lady will refer to in reply is that there are numbers of other pensionless persons—about 300,000 I think—whom she wishes to cover in any scheme which she adopts. I consider that these first 250,000 disqualified in 1948 should have priority. They are the older people, and she should take action about them first.
I am sorry that the Government were not willing to risk a Division on this matter. I do not quite understand why. They have set themselves up as the champions of the poor and the old, promising to do their best for them. Their election statements said that they would take immediate action and that they were poised to do so. I should have thought that they would not mind risking a Division on a matter of this kind. However, Mr. Speaker, as the business has turned out, you have been kind enough to call me in a different rôle today and there will be no Division on this issue at the moment. But why were the Government not able to face a Division? It would have demonstrated the considerable support in the House, as there is in the country, for what I am proposing. The right hon. Lady will have read the newspapers. She will probably have read the article in the New Statesman on this subject, which pointed out that politics is a matter of action and humanity as much as anything else.
I am appealing for action and humanity. It is not humane to leave these old people out any longer. The right hon. Lady cannot put them off any longer, in view of their age, by referring to some unspecified date at which she will introduce a minimum income guarantee. This will be of no satisfaction to them. I hope that she will not say that those who are now living on dwindling savings in these times should gradually sink towards National Assistance as their savings run out. That would be very unfair indeed in this particular case. In the past, the party opposite has complained about the number of people on National Assistance, and the purpose of my proposal is to take these old people away from that position. In fact, to pay full pensions to the 250,000 would mean a saving of £20 million on National Assistance. The right hon. Lady's Department kindly gave me that figure. The total net cost of paying

them not a full pension—I am not suggesting that—would be £30 million.
On Monday, large increases in benefits, costing £300 million, will be paid under the last National Insurance Measure to all those insured today under the national scheme. Since it would cost only £30 million, why could not the right hon. Lady find a way of including these old people in her last piece of legislation? I am not proposing legislation. I am speaking about past legislation. Why not? This matter was drawn to her attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in his maiden speech on the Second Reading of that Bill.
The right hon. Lady knew about it, and she knew what my own unmentionable intentions were at that time. Why could they not have been included? Was it impossible for her to spare £30 million from the National Insurance Fund for the purpose? On that Bill, the right hon. Lady told us that she had £61 million in the "kitty". What has happened to that £61 million surplus of income over outgoings? Has she no more money in the fund, or will the Chancellor not let her have it?
The right hon. Lady has often spoken with great feeling about old people and I have listened to and read speeches that she has made about them. I am sure that she has true feeling and sympathy for them. When she spoke during the debate on the National Insurance Act, 1963, she referred to old people in general and said:
I can think of many uses to which the old people could put a lump sum at the end of May. They could buy the warm blankets that so many of them desperately need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 694.]
Will she think of those words again in relation to these non-pensioners?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Before my hon. Friend sits down, I want to tell the House that an ugly rumour has reached me that the Patronage Secretary is about the move the Closure. I want to make it plain that we would regard any such action with disgust and contempt—a discreditable action.

Mr. Neave: I must say that after the way in which hon. Members opposite has attempted to treat me in this matter


I cannot but agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). But the country and certainly the constituencies are well aware of how my attempt to intoduce this matter has been frustrated. Anyone who listened to the radio this morning and has read the newspapers will be well aware of the situation. I do not think I need make any further reference to that treatment today except to say that if the Closure is moved at the present time we shall all draw our own conclusions, as we already have about the attitude of the Government on this subject.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Was not the hon. Gentleman himself a member of the Conservative Government, who were in office for 13 years? Why did not that Government do what he is now asking?

Mr. Neave: That is a wholly irrelevant intervention. The Government cannot excuse themselves from dealing with this problem by asking why someone else did not do it. These people are growing older and the problem becomes more acute. The Minister knows that I started my study of this matter as a result of a case in my constituency, which I referred to the last Government. They held to the contributory principle and I think that she does herself. She has often said that these people could not be paid pensions because of their lack of contributions. Both parties have left these people out for exactly the same reason.
I should feel that there was more sincerity about the intervention of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) if there had been the slightest sign among hon. Members opposite that they had ever intervened on behalf of these people in the last 13 years. That would have made a great deal of difference to the hon. Gentleman's sincerity. I do not think that he knew about this problem until I was able to draw attention to it. I should like to thank the various newspapers and others who have drawn attention to it also.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Neave: I shall not give way again. I want to sit down in a moment. The

hon. Gentleman can have nothing more to say following his intervention, which was irrelevant.
The people with whom I am concerned are growing very old and I want to know what the Government intend to do. They cannot wait. It is shameful to allow them to wait for political or any other reasons. The right hon. Lady has a sum of money in the National Insurance Fund. Why does she not get £30 million out of that and pay these people pensions based on the rate of pension for contributory pensions?
I might have made my points at greater length and there might have been a very different result from what will happen now had I been heard in a different capacity. But I hope that what I have said will be considered and that the Government will do something within a few months, will search out these old people, find out their situation and take action.

11.55 a.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Margaret Herbison): I am very pleased indeed that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has been able to make his case for these old people today. Some of these 250,000 old people and a great many other old people deserve the consideration of the House and although I understand, and know, that this is a short debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members would like to have an answer to the case, if they are really concerned about these old people, then they should want to know what the Government propose to do instead of making the kind of noise that they are making at present.

Mr. Peter Emery: rose—

Miss Herbison: No. I did not
interrupt the hon. Member for Abingdon, for I wanted to give him a chance to make a coherent case on behalf of these old people. I hope that I shall be allowed to make a coherent case for the Government.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Miss Herbison: No. I am not giving way at this early stage.
What the hon. Member for Abingdon asks is that pensions be given indiscriminately to these 250,000 old people.


The House and the country ought to know that this is not a homogeneous group. It includes about 120,000 who are in receipt of National Assistance and would have no benefit from the hon. Member's proposals. These old people have small fixed incomes and because of the continual rise in the cost of living their savings have been eroded and they are being helped by the National Assistance Board. They may be ex-school teachers, some of them with small pensions. They may be ministers of religion. There are all sorts of people in that category who are really in need of help.
At the other end of the scale are those who are very well off indeed. Some are ex-businessmen who still have very good assets. There are landowners among them. Thus, in the whole group of 250,000, there is a great variety of people with incomes ranging from the very small to the very large.
I had intended to deal with the reasons why they were not insured. Some of them could have been insured, but are not.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: rose—

Miss Herbison: I am sorry—not at this stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I will give way—[HON. MEMBERS: "When it suits you."]—not when it suits me, but when it is suitable to give way.

Mr. Higgins: rose—

Miss Herbison: Not at this stage. When I have finished this part of my speech I will certainly give way. I have every intention of clearing up as many points on this matter as I can.
As I have said, some of these 250,000 people could have had insurance under the old voluntary schemes, but, for one reason and another, decided that they did not want to do so. The cost of giving them the pensions asked for by the hon. Gentleman would, as he says, be £50 million. But already £20 million is being given to them through National Assistance, so the net cost to the nation would be £30 million. The Bill which he proposed to introduce would take this money out of the National Insurance Fund.
These are not the only old people who are without pension. We have, in addition to that 250,000, another 200,000 old people who are without a pension. These are old people who have retired since 1948. Some of them would have retired, perhaps, just a year after 1948. So that a great many of them are no different from the 250,000 about whom the hon. Member is concerned.

Mr. Neave: Except in age.

Miss Herbison: No. Not even in age, because some of the 250,000 could have retired in 1949. So some of these old people are very old indeed and are without pension.
Amongst those old people we have, perhaps, a daughter who stayed at home to look after her ageing parents and who was prevented from paying insurance, and now, in her own old age, has no insurance at all. There are also amongst these people those who are called late age entrants. In other words, they were within 10 years of retiring age in 1948. They paid their contributions, and if they had continued to pay for 10 years they would have had the full pension, but they were given an option—I think rightly—which was that when they reached pension age they could withdraw their contribution. About 84,000 elected to withdraw their contributions.
Who would these people be? People who, possibly, retired on nothing else but a small fixed income, and who found it impossible when they retired to continue paying contributions to the National Insurance Fund. The vast majority of them would be in that category. So among those 200,000, again, we have people whom I would consider very badly off and needing help—and 90,000 of them are getting National Assistance. At the other end, some of the 250,000 will be people who are fairly comfortably off.
We could not, in justice, do something for the 250,000 and not do something for the 200,000.

Mr. Higgins: I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way now. She is making great play with the fact that a number of these people are above the National Assistance level and she is saying that they are, in fact, well off, and there is no reason why we should, therefore, give them a pension in the terms


of the Bill which we should have been debating had we had the chance.
May I point out to her that the increases which were given in the November Measure were increases with no contribution whatsoever from the pensioners already retired, and they were also given to people some of whom were well off. There is no reason at all why she should be prepared to spend £300 million on them but not be equally prepared to spend it on the people who would benefit by my hon. Friend's Bill.
The argument that she is putting forward, that some of these people are not actually on National Assistance, is completely and utterly fallacious.

Miss Herbison: I have every intention of dealing with the point which the hon. Member has made in his intervention, but I want to insist again that if we do anything for the 250,000 we could not, in justice, leave out the other 200,000.
The cost for them would be another £20 million—that is, after deducting payments made by the National Assistance Board.
We have another group of people—

Mr. Emery: rose—

Miss Herbison: No. I cannot give way at this stage.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] There is another very big group of people, about 300,000 of them, who have a reduced pension. These are people who did contribute but because they had deficiencies in their payments had reduced pensions. One could not possibly say we were going to give to these others a pension if, at the same time, we did not give it to these 300,000.
Adding all these three categories together—and all of them are people whom we should like to help—and the full cost, which would have to come out of the National Insurance Fund, would be around £104 million, with a saving of about £40 million on payments by the National Assistance Board.
The hon. Member knows that in the Fund we have got to take care we ensure the pension for those who are continuing to contribute in the future, and he knows very well that that amount is in the National Insurance Fund.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Miss Herbison: I cannot give way at this stage, because it is important that this case should be known in the country.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: On a point of order. The right hon. Lady has refused to give way now twice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Three times."] Three times she has refused to give way. [Interruption.] Shut up. We are wondering whether we are to have an opportunity, after the right hon. Lady has sat down, to deal with the points that the right hon. Lady has made.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: It was not one, although whether it was presented as one or not I cannot say.

Mr. Emery: As the right hon. Lady has been interrupted, will she give way? I have asked three times.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: On a point of order. There is a rumour going around the benches that after the right hon. Lady has sat down the Patronage Secretary will move the Closure. It has been suggested to me that you will accept the Closure, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Lady is making very provocative statements. Surely we should be given an opportunity to answer the statements that she is making in her speech?

Mr. Speaker: The question of the right hon. Lady's choosing to give way or not to allow an opportunity to answer does not raise a point of order, because I cannot control her movements in that respect. They are for her. In so far as the hon. Member's question carries a further implication relating to further speeches, I must say that that, also, will not in practice be under my control.

Mr. Walter Monslow: The hon. Member opposite is not generally here on a Friday—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that some hon. Members are, perhaps, a little excited or jubilant, and that some other hon. Members are, perhaps, a little tired. I think that it is important not to make semaphore gestures during our debates.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member for Abingdon suggested that the 250,000 with whom he is concerned would be a dwindling number. There is not any doubt about that, but in each of the other two categories there will be each year more and more coming in as others go out. So if a decision were taken that out of the National Insurance Fund we should take care of all those three groups of people, that would be a continuing liability to the Fund.
The hon. Member said that he felt that Members on both sides of the House had not realised that this was a serious problem. It was because we on this side of the House realised that it was serious that we got down to the job of working out a system whereby all of those old people could be helped by our minimum income guarantee.

Mr. Emery: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Herbison: The hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who was at the Ministry for a considerable time, was asked a Question by one of her hon. Friends on 16th July, 1962. That is a number of years ago. In reply to a supplementary question, she said:
I would point out that there is very little point in saying, on the one hand, that to get the pension as of right one should contribute to it and, on the other hand, 'Never mind whether you contributed or not, you will get it in any case. That seems quite contradictory'.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: rose—

Miss Herbison: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
That was the answer to the first supplementary question. A further supplementary question was put to her, and she said:
…but many of these people have private resources or occupational pensions".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1962; Vol. 663, c. 5.]
It has been said that the Government did not know about this, but that was the line which was taken by the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Thatcher: I was not aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) was suggesting that any of these people should get the full retirement pension. I thought the suggestion was that it should be that amount less the

contributory element. As the right hon. Lady has stated to me in reply to a Question today, there are people now over 80, alongside these people who are drawing the full pension, who could have paid in total as little as £7 10s. and drawn it.

Hon. Members: That was during 13 years of Tory rule.

Miss Herbison: I think that the hon. Lady's intervention makes the Opposition's case worse. She said that this was only asking about a partial pension. Even when talking about a partial pension she used the words that I have quoted.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Miss Herbison: That is not the whole story. Here, I would refer to Mr. O'Hanlon, who is the Secretary of the Old-Aged Non-Pensioners Association. I am sure that he does very good work indeed for the old people, and I pay tribute to him. I understand that in May, 1963, a deputation was taken to meet the hon. Lady at the Ministry to discuss the problems of these old people.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What was the reply?

Miss Herbison: I do not know the reply.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What happened?

Miss Herbison: All I know is that from May, 1963, until the Opposition lost power in October, 1964, nothing was done for the old people.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Miss Herbison: I will not give way at this stage.

Mr. Higgins: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Herbison: No. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard the right hon. Lady say that she will not give way at this stage. In the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman must not persist.

Hon. Members: Disgraceful.

Miss Herbison: I thought that it was important that these facts should be—

Mr. Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance?


If the right hon. Lady refers to one of my constituents by name, would it not be courteous for her to give way to me?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, because I cannot control the right hon. Lady's movements.

Miss Herbison: I am quite certain that the constituent of the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) will not take any offence at the tribute which I paid to him.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Hon. Members: Disgraceful.

Miss Herbison: I am sorry that there is all this noise in the debate, but it is evident, and I hope that the country will note it—[Interruption.]—that this noise[Interruption.]—is because the Opposition do not want to hear the case.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Miss Herbison: I was at the stage of pointing out that the total cost for all these people in 1965 to 1966 would be a little more than £100 million. There may be various ways of doing this. The hon. Member for Abingdon wished to take the money out of the Fund. That would mean increased contributions.

Mr. Neave: indicated assent.

Miss Herbison: It would mean that some of the very low wage earners—some of whom are earning less than those on National Assistance—would have to face an increase in their contributions. There might be another way of doing it. Since the Chancellor will be saving about £40 million in National Assistance, it might be suggested that they could be given the other £60 million. That might be thought to be worth considering. But to make possible the increase in pensions that will be paid on Monday the Chancellor had to put 6d. on the Income Tax—

Sir Keith Joseph: Will the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Another fact that hon. Member are not thinking about, but which they will have to, is that any discussing of taxation is out of order on this Question.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Herbison: No. All I want to say is that the Opposition voted against the means to give the old people the increase in pension.

Sir K. Joseph: Withdraw.

Miss Herbison: rose—

Mr. Peter Bessell: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Herbison: Perhaps in a minute or two.
We, on the other hand, have a clear policy for the old people in our incomes guarantee. We are working very busily on it at the present time. We regard this as a very urgent matter, and it will be introduced as quickly as possible. Hon. Members opposite should look at our election manifesto. [Interruption.] They should realise that we have been in office as the Government for only five months, and they should also bear in mind the number of things that we have done which have helped all these old-age pensioners. First of all, there was the abolition of the prescription charges, which cost about £20 million. That helps all the old people.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Miss Herbison: There are other pledges that we have honoured. We have honoured pledges in the social security field. Our old people have had the biggest pensions increase ever since 1946. There are also the old people on National Assistance. There are a great many of the ones we have been discussing today, who have no pension, who are on National Assistance. We gave them the biggest increase ever. Then there is the earnings rule.

Sir K. Joseph: rose—

Miss Herbison: No.
Another of the things we have done is to abolish the earnings rule for widows. We have raised the 10s. pension to 30s. That is what we have done in my Ministry and in the Ministry of Health in five months. From my contacts with old people—and I meet thousands of them—I realise that they have faith in this Government and know that for those


who have real need the incomes guarantee will come in as quickly as possible.

Mr. Bessell: I am not out of sympathy with the right hon. Lady, who is having to make a very difficult argument on behalf of her party which, today, stands condemned in the country for the fact that it has failed to put right a wrong which was perpetrated for 13 years by the Opposition.

Miss Herbison: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a reasonable Member. What I have tried to show to the House in the last part of my speech, is that of our social security programme we have honoured a great part already and have every intention of honouring the remainder as soon as possible so as to end the two nations which we have always had and about which the Tories, for 13 years, did nothing.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward Short): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: (seated and covered): On a point of order. Is it in order for the Patronage

Secretary to practise deliberate deception on the House?

Mr. Speaker: The proposition that a Member, even if he happens to be a Minister, has deliberately practised deception on the House must be withdrawn. It would require a substantive Motion if the hon. Gentleman desires to say it.

Mr. Iremonger: Further to that point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I said that he would have to withdraw the expression he used. We can go on after he has withdrawn it.

Mr. Iremonger: If I substituted "misled", would that be acceptable?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member withdraws what he says and substitutes something which does not make an accusation of dishonesty, that would be in order.

Mr. Iremonger: Subject to your direction, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw whatever you tell me to withdraw and substitute "misled", for the reason that we were told that the debate had to go on, thus losing the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), so that we could speak in the debate as we wished. We have now been deceived.

Ayes 159, Noes 107.

Division No. 77.]
AYES
[12.22 p.m.


Atkinson, Norman
Ennals, David
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Ensor, David
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Albert (Islington, s.w.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford


Blaker, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lawson, George


Boardman, H.
Foley, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted


Boston, T. G.
Freeson, Reginald
Ledger, Ron


Boyden, James
Gregory, Arnold
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bradley, Tom
Grey, Charles
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Griffiths, Will (M'chester Exchange)
Lomas, Kenneth


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Loughlin, Charles


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
McBride, Neil


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hannan, William
McCann, J.


Chapman, Donald
Harper, Joseph
MacColl, James


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Roy
McGuire, Michael


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Hayman, F. H.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Dalyell, Tam
Hazell, Bert
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Holman, Percy
Mapp, Charles


Delargy, Hugh
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marsh, Richard


Dell, Edmund
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Mellish, Robert


Diamond, John
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mendelson, J. J.


Dodds, Norman
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mikardo, Ian


Doig, Peter
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Millan, Bruce


Duffy, A. E. P.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Dunnett, Jack
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Molloy, William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jackson, Colin
Monslow, Walter


English, Michael
Janner, Sir Barnett
Morris, John (Aberavon)




Mulley,Rt.Hn.Frederick(SheffieldPk)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Murray, Albert
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Newens, Stan
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thornton, Ernest


Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Rose, Paul B.
Tinn, James


Norwood, Christopher
Rowland, Christopher
Urwin, T. W.


Oakes, Gordon
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Wainwright, Edwin


Ogden, Eric
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)
Wallace, George


O'Malley, Brian
Short, Mrs. René (W'hampton,N.E.)
Warbey, William


Orme, Stanley
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Page, Derek (king's Lynn)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Pargiter, G. A.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Parkin, B. T.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pavitt, Laurence
Small, William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Perry, Ernest G.
Snow, Julian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Prentice, R. E.
Solomons, Henry
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Probert, Arthur
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Winterbottom, R. E.


Rankin, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Redhead, Edward
Stonehouse, John



Rees, Merlyn
Swingler, Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Reynolds, G. W.
Symonds, J. B.
Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Howie




NOES


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Maude, Angus


Astor, John
Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David


Baker, W. H. K.
Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper


Batsford, Brian
Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bell, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey


Berry Hn. Anthony 
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Onslow, Cranley


Bessell, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, R. Graham (Crosbv) 


Biffen, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pitt, Dame Edith


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Higgins, Terence L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Braine, Bernard
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Buck, Antony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Buxton, R. C.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Campbell, Gordon
Johnson Smith, G.
Sinclair, Sir George


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Channon, H. P. G.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keitth
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Chataway, Christopher
Kershaw, Anthony
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kilfedder, James A.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kirk, Peter 
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lagden, Godfrey
Thorpe, Jeremy


Cooke, Robert
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Costain, A. P.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Ward, Dame Irene


Curran, Charles
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Weatherill, Bernard


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsmth, Langstone)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Dean, Paul
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Whitelaw, William


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Longden, Gilbert
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Loveys, Walter H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Drayson, G. B.
Lubbock, Eric
Wise, A. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen



Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Mr. MacArthur Mr. Pym


Glover, Sir Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Patrick

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

FURTHER EDUCATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn until Monday next.—[Mr. Short.]

12.32 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: It has indeed been a hard day's night, but I am looking forward to this debate

because it concerns a topic which is very near and dear to my heart.
There are two major problems which I should like to see being tackled by the Ministry of Education with regard to adult education. I should like the Ministry to consider, first, the provision of educational courses for mature students. This may seem rather strange, especially when I ask that provision should be made for courses for mature students who are already extremely well qualified. I say this because many people who are already well qualified find that their knowledge quickly dates. They find that with the


passage of time, and with the development of new techniques and new research methods, the knowledge which they acquired when they took their first degree, or obtained their first certificate, is quickly rendered out of date.
Paragraph 167 of the Robbins Report says:
As the pace of discovery quickens it will become increasingly important for practitioners in many fields to take courses at intervals to bring them up to date in their subjects. A rapid development of such courses in university institutions is one of the recommendations we made in Chapter VIII.
According to Robbins, the problem arises
not because of a dearth of courses, for there have been notable developments in recent years, but partly because of inadequate support from employers, and partly because of a lack of awareness of the opportunities that exist.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

12.35 p.m.

Mr. Carter-Jones: It gives me great pleasure to continue in the knowledge that the Opposition are in no way interested in the furtherance of adult education courses in this country. I think that this should be noted by everyone. I am grateful for the presence of one hon. Gentleman who has recently been returned to the House.
If we are to take full advantage of the new technique, and new knowledge, if we are to stimulate interest, and if people are rapidly to acquire the new skills and new "know-how" so that society generally can benefit, the Ministry of Education will have to make a tremendous effort to allow people from all walks of life to continue their education. In view of the last debate, I hesitate to raise the matter again, but vast sums of money may be called for to provide this sort of education.
In another place in November last year Lord Bowden referred to the fact that it is now the view in America that this sort of education accounts for about one-third of their total education costs. In this country we spend a very small sum of money indeed on the provision of this type of course, and, unfortunately, we do not seem to appreciate that by spending a small sum of money we can acquire a

tremendous amount of new knowledge and new techniques which will be to the advantage of our whole society.
It is remarkable how quickly the medical practitioner finds his knowledge rendered out of date. The progressive medical man who wants to keep abreast of current knowledge can do so only at considerable expense and inconvenience to himself. It follows that the same sort of situation arises for technologists, scientists, and even art graduates. This is particularly true with regard to technical education and arts learning which has developed apace in this country of recent years.
I suggest that there are two main methods by which we can provide this form of education. First, we can think in terms of providing short one-day courses—I admit that that is the minimum aim—but stimulated by first-class visual aids we can try to give the people who are responsible for the spread of knowledge, and responsible for technical improvements, and for curing the sick, the opportunity of bringing their knowledge up to date. I hope that the machine which I saw recently can eventually be produced cheaply, but there is a new machine on the market called Filcol which provides us with a wonderful opportunity of ensuring that the people to whom I have referred are able to keep their knowledge up to date.
With regard to the other category of mature students who have already qualified, I want to point out the importance of long-term second degree courses. This is a field in which adequate provision has been made but, unfortunately, we do not publicise these schemes sufficiently; neither do we provide people who want to acquire further knowledge with sufficient financial help.
I wish to refer to two courses, and they are two of many. One is a course at Manchester where it is possible to get a master of science (technology) degree in solid state electronics. I do not pretend to understand what solid state electronics are, but I have been assured by my colleagues in the technical college at which I lectured before coming to this House that this subject is very important to the export market and to the future development of this country.
There is also a course at Birmingham. I refer to this because I have a colleague


who would like to take a course at that university. It is a course in reactor physics and technology. I have found that people who attended university and took a degree in physics 10 or 12 years ago now find themselves completely out of date, and an opportunity should be given to people who are primarily responsible for the spread of this type of knowledge to attend these courses. I ask the Minister to consider giving greater publicity to these courses and providing adequate financial help, for in the end society will gain.
I now come to the second-chance type of student. I have spent a considerable amount of my working life with this type of student. They are the people who attend extra-mural and W.E.A. classes and who will possibly follow courses in the university of the air which we hope will eventually be set up. If we are to have a proper follow-up to this sort of study, the Ministry must be much more progressive and positive than it has been in the past in giving help to people who wish to avail themselves of it.
Several problems arise when dealing with the older people who acquire an interest in education. The dilemma is this. When people reach 30 or 35 years of age their confidence in their ability has been sapped. The first task of the tutor is to try to convince them that they possess the potential qualities necessary to enable them to benefit from these courses. In addition, having persuaded them of their potential, they then have to be encouraged to apply, either to one of the adult colleges such as Ruskin, Coleg Harlech, Newbattle or Fircroft, or to take a mature scholarship for one of the universities. However, these are all too few.
Having first encouraged these people to take these courses, having got them to apply and having found them a place in a college, we come up against the greatest snag of all—the problem of finding money. This is really the tragedy. Casting my mind back over the 15 years that I spent in adult education, I would think that only one out of every 100 of my promising students ever applied. When we consider the record of these students who took the courses, the success rate is remarkable and fantastic. Large numbers of them succeeded in going to

places like Ruskin College and then on to Magdalene where they took first-class degrees in English literature. The failure rate amongst this type of student is far lower than among any other student undertaking advanced work. Because of the lack of educational opportunity in the past, we ought to think carefully about these people.
Even when these people obtain their qualifications at the age of 30, 35 or 40, so great is their desire to serve mankind that in any case society will gain as a result of the education which they have obtained. Despite the cost involved, enlightened self-interest demands that the country should make greater provision for the older second-chance students as well as providing latest knowledge courses for those who are already highly qualified.

12.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. R. E. Prentice): I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on raising this subject. May I also congratulate him on his lucidity at this hour, in view of the lengthy sitting of the House which I know my hon. Friend has attended.
My hon. Friend has raised a matter of great importance. My only difficulty in replying is that it is a very broad subject, of which he has covered many aspects, but clearly this is a subject which the House ought to debate, and I hope that we shall debate it at greater length on some future occasion when more Members will be able to participate in greater detail.
My hon. Friend has made an eloquent case for the expansion of courses in the fields which he has indicated. This is important from the point of view of the individuals concerned, and what my hon. Friend said about the failure rate is very revelant because this is evidence that we are making proportionately a smaller effort than we are in other educational fields. We agreed in our debate yesterday afternoon about the need to expand further education courses at all levels, but here there is a need for greater expansion. In terms of the changing economy, my hon. Friend was particularly relevant in his reference to the need for people to get up to date with their skills and to


learn new skills two or three times in a working life.
With regard to providing full-time courses for adult students, it is worth pointing out that the biggest provision at the moment is in technical knowledge where the numbers of adults attending full-time courses are larger than in some of the other categories which my hon. Friend mentioned. Of the number of students attending technical colleges, the total number for all kinds of courses, full-time and part-time, is about 1 million, of whom 52 per cent. are over 20. I do not know how many there are over 35, but obviously there would be a fairly substantial proportion. Among the 33,000 at present attending full-time or sandwich courses, one-quarter of these are over 20.
As to the expansion of that programme, this is a matter which the House debated earlier. The House will be aware that the Government have announced an expansion programme for higher education to include full-time courses in the technical colleges up to 1973, approximately on the lines recommended by the Robbins Committee. Deducting from the total number of extra places for higher education generally the totals announced for universities and teacher training colleges, we are left with an expansion of full-time courses up to 50,000 by 1973. I hope that we shall do rather better than that. This is in some ways the most open-ended part of the expansion of higher education. When talking about these colleges, the resources that we have can be adapted fairly quickly as between full-time and part-time courses and as between courses at different levels, and therefore they are more flexible resources than, for example, the universities, and so on.
My hon. Friend mentioned the work done by colleges such as Ruskin. He may be aware that we are committed at the moment to a certain amount of expansion. There are five residential colleges which form a group—Ruskin, Fircroft, Hillcroft, Coleg Harlech, and the Catholic Workers' College at Oxford, all of which are grant-aided by my Department, the Department paying about 40 per cent. of the running costs of the colleges. At the moment, they have 350 places between them and the expansion they are to undertake in the next three years will lead to another 100 places. I accept it if my hon. Friend says that a great deal more is

needed, but we are at the moment committed to a degree of expansion here.
Clearly one of the problems here is the grant of awards to students and the ability of students to afford such courses. Most of the courses we are talking about come within the category known as non-designated. That is a rather bureaucratic word. As hon. Members may know, in relation to student grants what we call the designated awards are for first degree courses or the equivalent where the amounts paid to students are laid down in regulations issued by my Department. The amount of the awards are under review at the moment by the Standing Advisory Committee, and whatever changes are recommended and accepted by the Secretary of State will take effect from September of this year. The non-designated awards are for other forms of higher and further education where there is autonomy with the local education authorities. This is a matter on which people may take one view or the other, but that is the present position.
I draw attention to the fact that a circular was issued last year to L.E.A.s drawing particular attention to the value of courses at Ruskin College and similar institutions and asking them—the Government have no statutory power to compel them—to ensure that adequate awards are available for students who go to those colleges. The Department had in mind particularly adult students of the categories my hon. Friend mentioned.

Dr. Wyndham Davies: The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) mentioned the great value of the work of the Workers' Education Association in adult education. I have had experience of the type of educational work done by the Association, particularly in such subjects as marine biology, which is not dealt with in many centres. For example, an extraordinary number of ordinary people, through such activities as the British Subaqua Club, have started to take an interest in the world around them and in all that the sea has to do with the life of everything in Britain. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give some indication this afternoon that additional help will be given to these activities of the Association.

Mr. Prentice: Additional help, in fact, was announced by my right hon. Friend


the Secretary of State in an Answer about 10 days ago. The hon. Gentleman can see the details in HANSARD. I have recently been in touch with the W.E.A. and am meeting the Association to discuss future problems it may have. I take the point about the value of the Association. Many of us on this side, too, have had experience of working with the Association.
I want to make a number of brief references to the very important question of refresher courses, which was an important part of my hon. Friend's speech. Having studied the problem, the general assessment one can make is that the universities, the C.A.Ts, the F.E. colleges, and so on, are by and large expanding and making provision for further expansions. As my hon. Friend said, the major problem is to increase the demand. I use "demand" in the sense of effective demand, meaning people who can afford to go to courses and who get the consent of their employers to attend courses. This is the direction in which a great deal of expansion must take place. The facilities in the colleges must be there as well. This is something on which the record at the moment is perhaps patchy.
On the whole, the opening is rather one of making the demand effective than of expanding facilities, because some courses in many fields are under-subscribed. For-example, last year the colleges of advanced technology provided 500 students with what are called post-experience refresher courses, meaning people who had done their academic work, had obtained experience in industry, and were returning for a refresher course of perhaps a month's duration. Of those 500, only 200 had financial help from their employers. This is something we want to see stepped up.
The major instrument which should be used is the Industrial Training Act. The new industrial training boards are getting into their stride this year. The first of their recommendations will be published next month, and one will be published in the following month. The Government hope that these boards will take within their scope not merely the traditional forms of training of craftsmen, and so on, but refresher work for people of all grades. We hope that they will use their powers so that there will be, not only

encouragement for employers, but a certain amount of sanction so that employers will make arrangements for their employees to attend such courses.
The whole field of management training, about which hon. Members on both sides are concerned, is very relevant to this. Within industry we want managers to take training a great deal more seriously. We believe that it is still in too many firms a sign of weakness if a man asks to go on a course. It should become much more firmly part of the policy of industry and commerce that managers and specialists of all kinds will take refresher training.
This is also relevant in the professions. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to what my hon. Friend has said about the retraining of doctors. Something has been done in this respect by establishing a fund within the framework of the National Health Service. We would all agree that much more needs to be done.
I have replied to the debate in very general terms. This is a wide subject, on which we should like to have a much more detailed debate. I hope that the House will be able to return to the subject from time to time.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: As a Member is able to raise any matter on the Adjournment, it seems to me that it is only right and proper at the end of today's proceedings that somebody should draw the attention of the House to the most shocking behaviour of a Government in living memory in interfering with private Members' time. We have seen the power of Government used, without any thought for Members, to frustrate the bringing forward of a Private Member's Bill that has won a place in the Ballot. We have seen the power of Government used, for the first time since the war, to frustrate a private Member in bringing forward his Bill in this way. From the Government Front Bench a Minister suggested that we should not adjourn bcause there were so many Members who wished to make speeches on certain matters on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Within a matter of two hours of that being said, with over 20 Members on this side on their feet and with at least four of five hon.


Members opposite on their feet, the Patronage Secretary—

Mr. Eric Ogden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Emery: No. I have not time. I asked a Minister seven times to give way. She promised to give way during her speech, but she finished her speech without giving way. That is the sort of behaviour we have seen from the Government today. We have seen the Government suggest that debate should continue in order that private Members could raise matters on the Consolidated Fund Bill and then, lo and behold, with 25 hon. Members on their feet, the Patronage Secretary moves the Closure. This is the sort of dictatorial Government which we had hoped would never he seen in this country.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order.Is the term "dictatorial" suitable in the circumstances when the matter was put quite fairly to the vote and the vote showed by three to two the desire of the House on that issue and when the hon. Member has put this point in the almost complete absence of his so-called supporters?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The term is certainly not out of order.

Mr. Emery: The whole action of the Government in this matter further goes to prove my point about their dictatorial behaviour, when they override private Members' time and the opportunities to speak and to raise, as hon. and right hon. Members opposite have suggested, all the great occasions that come up on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and when Ministers speak for over three and a half hours in private Members' time, and then go on to move the Closure. This is the sort of thing that the country should know about, because it brings down the reputation of the House. We want to ensure that this sort of behaviour on the part of the Government is fully understood. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where was the hon. Member?"] I was here for a great deal of the time—all but two hours.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes past One o'clock p.m. till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.